Is 24s playable? Esp. directed to higher limit, live big-bet games

[Ulysses]

Here's the hypothetical structure:

SB: 1x
BB: 2x
4x to open.

Opener and 2 or 3 callers (ie: 4 limp in). You have 250x. You know the players pretty well. A couple of them are pretty bad and most have you covered, so effective stack size is 250x.

Should you call w/ 24s? I don't think you're getting the implied odds to call when you take into account the money you'll often put into the pot on the flop as well as the reverse implied odds problems:

1) Sometimes you will flop a four flush and see the turn.
2) Sometimes you will flop OESD and see the turn.

These will often result in you putting in a fair amount of money beyond your 4x call.

3) Sometimes you will make a smaller flush.
4) Sometimes you will make two pair v. set.
5) Sometimes you will make two pair and get counterfeited.

And these things will lose you your stack if you decide to back your hand all the way w/ two pair or a small flush.

Most importantly, if you're going to the felt w/ 24s, I think you're going to lose more times than not, even against bad players you can read well.

Note that I'm specifically talking about an unraised pot here, an important point IMO.

Put all that together, and I don't think you have sufficient implied odds to call given the relatively small number of flops you really love to give/get action w/ this hand (and the challenges of taking down a multi-way hand like this if you miss). I just don't think you'll make enough w/ this hand and will so rarely bust someone w/ it that it seems improbable it could be profitable. But maybe I play too tight and like a little girl.

Who agrees/disagrees?

[JKratzer]

I'm really quite surprised at the extent you went to defend your decision. I think it's pretty obvious that 24s is worthless.

[klagett]

Between limping in then paying when you have a flush draw and open ended draw it's just not worth it.

But then again i'm nobody special

BUT IT IS MY 21ST BIRTHDAY IN 2 HOURS!!

[Diplomat]

I don't have much to say (largely because I agree) except to also add that there are many other hands that will hit the flop much more often than 24s and maintain a deceptive image, add variance and unpredictability, etc. In my opinion, there will not be many boards that are favourable to your hand that you will get enough action to justifiy your pre-flop call, unless you are beat.

Shrug. I don't know the math and all that jazz. I just avoid this hand.

-Diplomat

[Garland]

Qualifying statement: I've only played as high as 2/5 blind No-Limit. I have not played higher limit big-bet however it's defined.

Why specifically 24s? What about the other hands such as 35s and other one gapper suited cards? At what point does it become playable?

To answer your question, no, it's probably not best to play them, and if I do, it's from the button for a limp just for variation. You already listed some of the things I'll list that makes me unhappy.

1) You can't make top pair and be happy about it.
2) Two pairs will get counterfeited easily.
3) You can't make the nut flush

But then you have to think about who could possibly give you action on the flops that are good for 2 4:

2 4 x: Someone might give you action with the x pair, good kicker. However, if he also has two pair, you're sunk.

3 5 x: Open-ender. Something to bluff with perhaps. But who will have a huge chunk of that board?

A 3 x and A 5 x: Possible action from the A and Ax, but you're going for a gutshot. Hard to continue unless you have a flush draw to go with it as well.

A 3 5: Dream scenario, but will happen once in every how many times? And then what's the likelihood someone has a premium confident A (and didn't raise pre-flop) or has two pair or a set?

Who will give action? And there's always the well-hidden set in which you're drawing slim or dead against depending on where the set is at. There's the flush draw, of course and overpairs. But all-in the probability that you'll hit your hand at the same time your opponent will is very low and probably not worth the initial investment.

Garland

[turnipmonster]

I agree, in general I like a one gapper better than connected cards if they're low, since my straight is better disguised and more likely to be good. can't take a lot of heat with 23 if the flop comes 456, besides your hand isn't well disguised anyways. more people play cards like 78 than something like 47 so on a 3 5 6 flop I'm a lot more comfortable I'm getting action from two pair rather than the nut straight.

but I hate idiot straights so I usually avoid lower cards in general. flush over flush is very rare but very very expensive so really, to me the suitedness only is valuable in freerolling on your opponent when both of you have the straight. doesn't come up a lot in hold 'em, very important in omaha though.

I never play 24s from any position though. not too many hands I can think of that I want to hit. trips can be outkicked easily by people playing A4s and A2s. two pair is easily counterfeited. the straight is probably good, that's about it. I say save your 4x for something important, like a bottle of johnny walker. blue or black depending on how high you play.

--turnipmonster

[fsuplayer]

Ulysses-
I also agree that 24s is generally unplayable, but for the sake of arguement, given the reasons that you state (specifically reasons 3-5) shouldnt all suited connectors lower than say 78s be thrown away as well?

Dont you run into all those potentials problems with those types of hands as well?

I am just interested in some debate bc I currently play these hands (maybe a bit too much) and would like to hear some thoughts about them.


FWIW I have been flush over flushed about as many times as I have been over-set(ed), which has been almost never.

FsuPlayer

[jen]

The Big U. is not defending his play... he's making a veiled attempt at chastising me for mine. He's arm chair quarterbacking my play at the local 10-10-20 (a game in which he's never played with me, I should add) in which I threw in $40 pre-flop and won a $6k pot.

This is an argument that U. and I have had on this forum before in which I don't categorize any hand as "unplayable" in NL. I think hands are either played correctly or not in any given situation.

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
Should you call w/ 24s?

[/ QUOTE ]

certainly not. but should you raise? maybe.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
certainly not. but should you raise? maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can definitely see a case to be made for raising or for calling in a raised pot.

[Ulysses]

The issue is not your specific play. I think you played this specific hand fine. How you played the hand and how much you made w/ it is really irrelevant to this question, though. If middle guy flopped big and reraised the flop, you would have ended up losing $1300+ w/ 24s. Would you then claim that this is a terrible hand to play? I don't think you'll go bust a lot w/ this hand, but it's the times that you end up losing $300 or $1300 that kill your implied odds in this hand.

And of course there's my main point: I contend that there are definitely some hands in NLHE that if you end up going to the felt with in an unraised pot, even against idiots your chances of winning are quite slim. Especially hands that are good at making things like bottom two pair or low flushes.

Put it all together, and yes, I think that there are some hands that are inherently unprofitable over the long term in NLHE.

[jen]

"If middle guy flopped big and reraised the flop, you would have ended up losing $1300+ w/ 24s. Would you then claim that this is a terrible hand to play?"

No. That's like saying if I had pocket As and played against pocket 2s but happened to lose $X on the hand because pocket 2s happened to flop bigger, then would playing pocket As be wrong. Of course not.

"Put it all together, and yes, I think that there are some hands that are inherently unprofitable over the long term in NLHE."

Sure, if you play the hand poorly, any hand is unprofitable over the long term. But if you play the hand well, then it's not. I've seen top pros turn over total garbage in this game. I've seen one particular pro (whose game I respect and who's been on WPT) go to the felt with 94o and this same guy call a huge river bet with two pair with 95o. He won both hands. By your definition, is 94o or 95o an "unplayable" hand?

[1800GAMBLER]

Looks like i owe thanks to WPT again for turning higher level players into idiots.

Sure he won a big pot with it, but think back to all those times he called that raise then mucked right away on the flop and you were thinking 'what hand could he drop so fast?' then think of all the times he got into a large pot, called, then mucked.

No matter how good a player is i could sit down a monkey to his right and have the monkey raise 20% of his stack preflop and 94o and all that crap wont be profitable.

So while you may once find a situation for a hand to be playable, it depends on the situation not how well you play postflop.

[1800GAMBLER]

1. When you make your flush/straight will you win equally from two pair/set as much as you'll lose to a higher flush/straight/boat?

2. When you make two pair will you will win equally as much from top pair as you'll lose to a higher two pair? Etc.

While it's more likely in each case that when you make your hand you are the one leading, it's not very likely that you'll win equally as much as you'll lose when leading VS losing.

All of that depends on how bad the players play; passive bad would be better too. If each player before you will go bust with top pair top kicker then yes it's going to be profitable.

[limon]

i would never call with this hand or any hand that isnt drawing to the nuts. ill raise any time i think i can take controll of the pot.

[1800GAMBLER]

Re: which game.

I think a capped 100x blind structure would benefit this hand more than a 250x because then it's more likely your loses will equal your wins. Net wise you'll win because your wins will occur more. i.e. 100x game. I make two pair i win 100x. I make a lower flush i lose 100x. In the 250x game i'd probably still win 100x with two pair but lose 250x to the higher flush.

Graphs:

So if you imagine implied odds on a graph. Stack size against profit it would be an n shape.

Very ugly Graph picture here (http://onfinite.three10.com/libraries/display.php?lid=8715&d=ff69a5e83dff5c427a12eb4d8fb e6a59)

The first stage of implied odds would be low because the stacks aren't big enough. You wouldn't make enough profit postflop from your preflop investment. So it would be negative.

The 2nd stage of implied odds is were it would peak (say 100x) because then you are maxing your winnings but also capping your loses.

The 3rd stage the graph would fall again, because then you've entered reserve implied odds (i.e. going to the felt with the losing hand for more).

So interestingly, this hand has both postive implied odds and reserve implied odds depending on the stack size.

A,xs:

Compare this to how you'd imagine A,xs. In that case the graph would be a straight positive x=y graph (assuming lower flushes always go bust for infinite amounts). So this hand never gets to a reserve implied odds stage. ... it may dip at the end because of the extra bet you will pay off when the board pairs and you lose to a boat, but in that case you can limit your loses.

Pocket pairs:

Comparing 24s to 55 would be interesting. 55 as a set would also be a n shape. Eventually when more than 150xbb have gone in you'd expect to be losing. Yet, instead of this graph just being an n, it would be a sin wave, (n U n) because of the times it makes a full house. Profit would increase in relation to stack size, but eventually, say when 400x has gone in, you'd expect to be behind and profit would slope down.

The magnitude (or peaks) of each of these graphs are dependant of how well the players play. If they play awfully your peaks in profit will be higher, if they play better your peaks will be low. If they play world class that could totally change the shape of the graph.

[DcifrThs]

i agree with your assesment here.

its too likely you're behind if it all goes in.

BUT!! if these are players you a) have control over, b) can read extremely well, and c) don't call too much on later streets. then you MIGHT want to RAISE!

nl is the only game i feel comfortable not really knowing what my cards are in certain instances. i can raise late against poor playing limpers and expect to take down the pot on the flop with a reasonable bet more than 50% of the time. if they call once its clearly over unless i look at my cards and see i've got some goodies lol.

seriously though. 42s is too weak to be in there unless YOU'RE IN THERE. take control of them or dump it. but never call with that crap there. what are you trying to accomplish?

good post though because if you don't call with 42s, what else don't you call with getting 11:4 or under 3:1 on your call. change it to 1x,2x, 2x and you're getting 7:2 or 3.5:1 and you can limip a bit more liberally on STRICTLY pot odds considerations. but those are notthe predominant way to judge strategy and playing decisions in NL.

either way, fold 42s unless you wanna gamble it up and make them fold on the flop (this is contingent upon your image and their previoius actions in similar situations).

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

wow, a post of mine that agrees entirely with limon. sweet lol.

basic stuff here relatively speaking. i was lost much more in Ray Zee's NL AcKc hand vs. the early limper and late maniac than i ever would be here. raise take control or fold. just depends on the type of players that limped before you.

well said, short and sweet.
-Barron

[jen]

"Looks like i owe thanks to WPT again for turning higher level players into idiots."

This statement is ridiculous. The player who I spoke of is a big winner in this game and travels (and beats) the biggest games that are spread around the country.

"No matter how good a player is i could sit down a monkey to his right and have the monkey raise 20% of his stack preflop and 94o and all that crap wont be profitable."

I never said that he raised 94o with 20% of his stack. This particular player always plays extremely deep.

"So while you may once find a situation for a hand to be playable, it depends on the situation not how well you play postflop."

Of course it depends on the situation. As an extreme example, I certainly don't claim that you can call all-in bets with any two.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
If each player before you will go bust with top pair top kicker then yes it's going to be profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a game where this is true, I'd consider playing any two cards. However, I think this will rarely be the case.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
By your definition, is 94o or 95o an "unplayable" hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point, jen. My contention is very simple:

In an unraised pot w/ multiple limpers, (and however else I defined the initial situation) I contend that limping w/ 24s on the button will be unprofitable over the long term. That's all.

I'm not sure, but I might feel the same way about 94o, though that hand doesn't face as many reverse implied odds problems as 24s.

The reason why people have mentioned raising is that the implication in this situation is that you are playing the hand to make money by making a hand. That's different than just playing any 2 cards, which can definitely be profitable in NL.

[jen]

"You're missing the point, jen."

I was responding to this point of yours:

"I think that there are some hands that are inherently unprofitable over the long term in NLHE."

I disagree with this. I think hand selection and play are entirely situational in NL.

"I'm not sure, but I might feel the same way about 94o, though that hand doesn't face as many reverse implied odds problems as 24s."

I felt that 24s was playable in this juicy game on the button with multiple limpers and deep stacks. However, I wouldn't play w/95o unless I raised with it in this particular circumstance (and I wouldn't have done so in this particular game).

[1800GAMBLER]

"I never said that he raised 94o with 20% of his stack"

neither did i.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this. I think hand selection and play are entirely situational in NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point, but I should have been clearer.

When I said hand, I did not mean "24s" is inherently unprofitable. I meant limping in w/ 24s in a multi-way pot looking to make a hand. That was why I kept emphasizing/outlining the specifics of the situation. By hand, I meant to encompass hand/situation/action.

There are plenty of situations where you can take down the pot w/ two cards. Those cards may just happen to be 24s or 94o. Whatever.

When I speak of the inherent unprofitability above, I'm speaking of this hand in this situation, played with the intent to make a hand.

[ QUOTE ]
I felt that 24s was playable in this juicy game on the button with multiple limpers and deep stacks. However, I wouldn't play w/95o unless I raised with it

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's where we disagree. A spot like this in which 24s is playable/profitable, IMO, is one in which any two cards will be profitable. If it's right to muck 95o, I think it's right to muck 24s. I think this is really the only point on which we disagree.

If you say you're looking to play any two cards here because there's a specific player you can bust, I think the play is fine. However, playing 24s because you think it can make more hands and not playing 95o, that I disagree with.

[felson]

So do you only call with pairs and suited aces? You said before that you hate calling with suited connectors unless it's in a raised pot.

[limon]

callin' aint my game.

[DcifrThs]

you shouldn't be doing much calling AT ALL is the point.

in NL if you call you better be setting something up for a future hand, round, or play in the current round. i hate calling in NL...

BUT i will limp occasionally with hands i'd normally fold or raise with to vary things up a bit and if i'm getting odds to do so late to try to hit something after MANY MANY players have limped in...but after 2 players here, its really take it or leave it.

but you are correct that in the right instance calling w/ a suited ace is good. as with pairs, thats why i call a little more with hands other than those to disguise the times i call with those...but on the whole calling isn't the predominant action by any stretch of the imagination. if you ONLY call with pairs and suited aces its too easy to play against your call. so i'll limp with AJs maybe once in a place i'd normally raise with it or toss it b/c i didn't like the UTG's look when he limped (gut says hes got a big one). NL is just a variable game and you gotta keep up with it...

i know i rarely FEEL as if i have the ability to play this game even at small 5-10 blinds with a few grand behind. thats why i ONLY play it when i'm rested, i've excersized and feel very good and confident. each decision can cost alot.

good luck.
-Barron

[Matt Flynn]

Hi guys,

I haven't read the other posts so forgive any redundancy. Ulysses e-mailed me about this one:

24s isn't a speculative hand. It's a steal hand. Your primary equity in 24s lies in your ability to take down pots without a hand. Look at an odds chart and you'll see how rarely you get a big hand. Then consider that the other guy has to have a big hand too to get the money in, and you see how miserable the make-a-hand equity is for 24s.

I call or raise with 24s only when my cards do not matter. If I complete from the small blind with that hand, I am drunk.

Matt

[Matt Flynn]

Ok now I've read the posts.

Someone asked about 78s and the like. 78s has far more make-a-hand equity than 24s. Nevertheless, it is still unplayable without steal equity.

Bobby Hoff loved to call with those hands with position on a raiser in the LC's game. Usually the raiser had a shortish stack, maybe $2,000. Those raisers often backed their overpairs with their stacks, which worked against Bobb'ys play. In fact if Bobby knew the guy had aces he should muck if the raiser is willing to go to the felt with them.

In those hands, Bobby needs over 40:1 on his investment (after redraws) GUARANTEED to go in to make 78s playable. well that never happened. So why did he do it? Three reasons. One, Bobby was a little loose sometimes. Two, he was hoping to take the pot from raisers when they didn't have a pair and didn't flop their hand. Three, some players would lay down their overpairs on any scary board. Then it's like shooting fish in a barrell for him.

Matt

[george w of poker]

i think in the cases you are calling in a raised pot you aren't going to be playing the cards in your hand and you want to be heads up or 3 handed with weak opponents.

playing this hand with showing down in mind is a horrible idea.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
If I complete from the small blind with that hand, I am drunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily for me, I can use that excuse to justify most all of my play.