suited trouble hands

AT, KT, KJ, QT. How much value do these hands gain by being suited? Are these hands that should be played in LP after three or more limpers?


Although they have less straight possiblities than a meduim suited connector and are trap hands, the possibility of making a high flush(especially AT) merits a call with multiple limpers in front, correct?


Are there other reasons for playing these hands, other than stealing the blinds?

Mountain rat,


I think that all of the hands in your list can be played in late position after several limpers. I imagine that some people would even raise with those hands, given their position for at several reasons.


1) to build a large pot, in case they flop a draw and they want equity to draw to.

2) they have limpers in front of them and they might have the best hand.

3) they might buy the button, improve their position, or get control of the hand.

4) they might eliminate one or both blinds and improve their outs.

5) it might enable them to win the pot on the flop.


hmmm. Maybe you should raise with these hands in late position. On the other side of the coin, you are probably behind, and you might want to maximize your implied odds, especially if nearly all hands are going to a showdown.


If it is folded to you in late position, I would steal with almost all of these hands, it might not even be a steal, you may very well be betting the best hand.


Good luck,

Play well,


Bob T.

Are these hands that should be played in LP after three or more limpers?


In this situation, I raise with all these hands. Big suited cards are great multi-way hands. They can win by making a flush, a straight, and big pair/big kicker. Having multiple ways to win is what makes these hands great multi-way hand.


KTs and QTs are the worst of these big suited cards and can be difficult to play if all you flop is a pair (not even a backdoor draw). KJs is a bit better. I wouldn't hesitate to raise with AKs, AQs, AJs, KQs, QJs, and JTs.


There's a great discussion in the "General Theory" archives started by David Sklansky concerning ATs. The thread is titled "Rate These Hold'em Errors" and was started on 10/14/01. You'll get a lot of insight if you find that thread and read through it- especially the answers provided by Sklansky.


I disagree that these hands are trap hands. All these hands must be played in late position. If you're not comfortable raising with all of them, start by always raising in this spot with KQs, QJs, and JTs. Then, add in KJs and maybe KTs and QTs.

I agree with raising most of these hands, but which ones would you 3 bet with? I struggle with what to do with these hands in all positions when someone else raises.


KQs, AKs, and AQs are easy 3 bets for me in LP, but the rest get really fuzzy! Thoughts?


Paul

Dynasty,


In one of your previous posts you implied that you feel QJo is superior to KJo. Now you are implying that QJs is superior to KJs. I am curious why you feel this way. The only advantage that QJs has is that it can make three straights to KJs's two. In every other instance KJs is a heavy favorite:


1) it makes a higher no pair

2) it makes a higher top pair

3) it has a higher kicker if the J pairs

4) it makes a higher flush


Which hand would you rather have with the following flops?:


1) JXX

2) KQX

3) XXX with 2 or 3 of your suit

4) XXX low rags


What flops would you rather have QJs? Of course QXX but that is canceled by KXX. The higher card value of K vs. Q is simply more important that the one extra straight that you can make with the connector. Heads-up KJs wins 70% of the time against QJs.


Regards,

Hugo

Thanks for your reponse and direction to the Sklansky ATs thread, they were both very helpful.


I have one further question. KTo, KJo, QTo and ATo are all trap hands that are easily dominated so should never be played in EP. I realize that in late position, when these hands are suited, it is correct to raise after many limpers to ensure you get the pot odds if you flop a draw, to give you a bluffing opportunity or increase your chances of being able to buy a free card on the turn, and raised when opening because your hand is likely best.


Now suppose you are in MP, and to a lesser extent, in EP. Because of the possibility that you may be raised by a hand to act behind you that dominates your hand (as in the case of open limping in MP with KJs and being raised by AK of KQ) should these hands ever be played as an opener when you are not in LP. I rarely play these cards when they are offsuit unless I am opening in LP or in the blinds. Does being suited add enough value to allow these hands to be played as openers in MP, or should they be mucked like their offsuit counterparts in EP and MP.


Essentially, does the multiway benefits of being suited merit open limping or limping after an EP limper with 3 or more players to act behind? Thanks for all your great comments, they are appreciated.

AKs is the only hand I would always 3-bet with. 3-betting with AQs or KQs would require a very specific reason such as isolating a loose raiser.

The hands are extremely close in value. The difference is not substantial. I prefer the QJso because it is easier to release post-flop. A hand's value is determined not only by how much you win when you make the best hand but also by how much you lose when you make a second/third best hand.


It's interesting that QJs is rated just one spot above KJs in Sklansky's ratings. However, QJo is rated one spot below KJo.


Heads-up KJs wins 70% of the time against QJs.


This is irrelevent in determining the value of a hand. 22 will beat AK greater than 50% of the time but that doesn't make 22 a better hand.

I would always play ATs, even UTG. I know that Clarkmeister frequently (more than 50%?) raises with it in EP. However, I always limp with it in EP and open-raise in MP. Many other good players will raise in EP with ATs.


KTs and QTs are hands I will usually fold in EP unless two players have limped in ahead of me. KJs may be strong enough to play with just one limper. Remember, when you limp in EP, you are giving others the odds to play more hands in later position. Limping begets more limpers.


In MP, they are probably all worthy of making an open-raise.

The hands are extremely close in value. The difference is not substantial


I agree that they are close but KJs is clearly better so raising with QJs while limping with KJs under the same circumstances is a mathematical error.


A hand's value is determined not only by how much you win when you make the best hand but also by how much you lose when you make a second/third best hand.


Could you please explain your reasoning that KJs will lose more money when second best than QJs will?


I prefer the QJso because it is easier to release post-flop


This argument is absurd. QJs is eaiser to release because it is an inferior hand. Does that mean you prefer 72o since it is easy to release post-flop?


This is irrelevent in determining the value of a hand. 22 will beat AK greater than 50% of the time but that doesn't make 22 a better hand.


Your logic is flawed. Comparing KJs to QJs is meaningful because they are both looking for the same type of flop and play very similarly. AK and 22 are looking for completely different flops and play very differently.


Let's look at it a different way. The table below shows the win percentages vs random hands by number of opponents (1-9):


KJs 62.6 45.9 36.8 31.1 26.9 23.8 21.3 19.3 17.6

QJs 60.3 44.1 35.6 30.1 26.1 23.0 20.7 18.7 17.1


For a reasonable number of opponents the difference is in the 1%-2% range. This is not insubstantial.


Dynasty, you are rightfully one of the most respected posters on this forum but you are wrong on this one.


Regards,

Hugo

Let's look at the hands KJs and QJs can make. There are three basic hands: straights, flushes, and big pairs.


Straights


QJs can make three kinds of straights: The nut Ace-high straight, the nut King-high straight, and the nut Queen-high straight.


KJs can make two kinds of straights: The nut Ace-high straight and the nut King-high straight.


So, QJs can make three kinds of straights whereas KJs makes two straights. All of the straights made by either hand will be the nut straight.


Clearly, this is an advantage for QJs. The straight-value of QJs is 50% greater than KJs.


Flushes


The hands have almost exactly the same flush value. Obviously a King-high flush is better than a Queen-high flush.


However, what hands will beat the Queen-high flush which won't also beat the King-high flush? They both lose to full-houses or better. They both lose to Ace-high flushes. So, the only hand which beats the Queen-high flush but doesn't beat the King-high flush is a King-high flush.


So, the hands should win the exact amount of money subtracting these extremely rare occasions when your QJs is up against Kxs of the same suit and you both make flushes (or a lone King beats you on a four-flush board).


KJs' advantage here is miniscule. Flush over flush is rare enough. But, King-high flush over Queen-high flush is probably much rarer than set over set.


Big Pairs


KJs obviously has a bigger card than QJs and is better in this area. But, how much better is it?


When either hand flops a top pair of Jacks, they both are concerned with two overcards. KJs fears overcard Aces and Queens. QJs fears overcard Aces and Kings. They both lose to AJ. QJs will also lose if it is up against KJ.


When KJs flops top pair of Kings, it only has one overcard to be concerned with- the Ace. When QJs flops top pair of Queens, it is concerned with both Aces and Kings coming on later streets.


These are definate edges for KJs. It will make better pair hands than QJs everytime. But, that brings me back to the comment I made in the previous post.


I'll call this...


Intangible Value


I said: A hand's value is determined not only by how much you win when you make the best hand but also by how much you lose when you make a second/third best hand.


This is very important. Both KJs and QJs will often get into trouble post-flop when they flop top pair but run into the regular limping hands AJo and KQo.


When you flop top pair with QJs, and somebody else says they have you beat by their betting action, it is easier to release the hand because either your pair or kicker is weaker than it will be with KJs.


I think the ease of releasing QJs post-flop when all you flop is a pair is notable. You should be much less likely to pay off those AJ's and KQ's because there are more hands which you're opponents could have reasonably limped with which have you beat.


Net Results


Straight Value: Clear advantage to QJs

Flush Value: Miniscule advantage to KJs

Big Pair Value: Clear advantage to KJs

Intangible Value: Small advantage to QJs


I think the net results give a small advantage to QJs here. Again, it's not substantial.


By the way, the additional straights which can be made and what I called "intangible value" is why JTs is better than both QJs and KJs. Again, the difference is not substantial.

You should read my "Why QJs is better than KJs" post before you read this one.


I agree that they are close but KJs is clearly better


Why is this clear? Because a King is bigger than a Queen? That's not a good enough reason. QJs is better as a straight-making hand and shouldn't be a pay-off hand post-flop when you only make a pair and no draw.


Could you please explain your reasoning that KJs will lose more money when second best than QJs will?


When all you flop is a pair (not even a backdoor draw), it should be easier to fold just a one-pair hand when somebody tells you they have you beat by their betting action.


On a J,x,y flop, KJ is hard to let go despite the regularity of players limping with AJ. However, QJ is an easier fold because opponents could hold both AJ or KJ. On a K/Q,x,y flop, KQ is the regular limping hand which will bust you (AK and AQ with some opponents).


When all you flop is a pair, KJs just reverts back to the payoff hand which KJo is for so many players.


This argument is absurd. QJs is eaiser to release because it is an inferior hand. Does that mean you prefer 72o since it is easy to release post-flop?


72o is a profitable hand for me. I specifically remember a hand when I got a free play with it in the big blind and flopped trip 2's. Since I fold it in every other position, I have never lost money with it outside of the big blind.


Do you see the point here? A hand which has weaker pair value (not weaker overall value) is easier to release post-flop when you are beat.


...KJs (and) QJs are both looking for the same type of flop and play very similarly.


Maybe this will bring us together. What kind of flop are they looking for? When I play these hands, I am looking to flop a draw (a made striaght or flush woudl be nice to /images/smile.gif ). I am not looking to flop top pair. It should be clear that QJs is much better for straight purposes and that it is only minisculely inferor to KJs for flush purposes.


So, if you're looking to flop a draw, QJs is notably better.


KJs only makes up ground in the big pair category but that often gets players into trouble post flop.


Let's look at it a different way. The table below shows the win percentages vs random hands by number of opponents (1-9)


I think the standard arguements against simulations applies here. It is not able to account for post flop play and overvalues the higher card value of KJs.

Straights


The straight-value of QJs is 50% greater than KJs.


This is dead wrong. The straights that you make when you flush are meaningless so you have to subtract those. In actuality the probability of QJs making a straight without a flush (or better) is 6.66% compared to 5.05% for KJs.


Flushes


Yes, there is not much difference when the board is three flush but it is huge when the board is four flush or has the potential to four flush. If you flop or turn a flush with QJs you can bet that anyone with the unsuited K or A is going to call you to the river.


Big Pairs


No argument here


Intangible Value


I think the ease of releasing QJs post-flop when all you flop is a pair is notable


Again, I just can't believe that you would rather play a lesser hand because it is eaiser to fold. If you have trouble folding KJs when the situation warrants then this is a deficiency in your game, not a shortcoming of KJs.


Net Results


Straight Value: Advantage to QJs

Flush Value: Advantage to KJs

Big Pair Value: Clear advantage to KJs

Intangible Value: zero


But we can't simply sum the results of the four catagories since they are not equally weighted. In reality the "Big Pair Value" situation is far more common than the others making KJs the clear winner.


...JTs is better than both QJs and KJs.


Let's not even go there /images/smile.gif

Why is this clear? Because a King is bigger than a Queen? That's not a good enough reason.


This far up the ladder the difference between values in rank is huge.


When I play these hands, I am looking to flop a draw (a made striaght or flush woudl be nice to). I am not looking to flop top pair.


Interesting. In your original post you said:


Big suited cards are great multi-way hands. They can win by making a flush, a straight, and big pair/big kicker. Having multiple ways to win is what makes these hands great


I think the standard arguements against simulations applies here. It is not able to account for post flop play


Simulations are meaningful here since KJs and QJs play the same post-flop.


...and overvalues the higher card value of KJs.


Perhaps it is you who is undervaluing the higher card value of KJs.


Regards,

Hugo

Holdem is a big card game. You are drastically overvaluing the value of the straights, IMO. You win pots in this game with top pair. You are going to win far more pots with KJ top pair than you will with QJ. This applies even more to JT. I can't believe you would think that JT is a better hand than KJ.


There are very few times when you flop top pair of jacks with QJ that you should muck, but not muck KJ. In fact, I can't think of any. Players playing KXs in particular, and frequently QXs make both of these hands best when they flop top pair in unraised pots the vast majority of the time. And since we usually have position, you minimize your losses the few times you are dominated.


Here are the EV's from the Poker Room website (In BB's) along with some other relevant ones:


AA: 2.44

JJ: .88

AKs: .80

AKo: .52

KJs: .34

AQo: .32

QJs: .26

AJo: .18

JTs: .15

A5s: .10


The .08 difference between KJs and QJs is not insubstantial. And the .19 difference between KJs and JTs is large.

ATs utg in an average game will get a raise from me about 40-50% of the time. Its a tweener. AJ wants to let in weaker aces, and something like A8s wants to fold better aces. Yes, I will raise A8s UTG sometimes, not often, but sometimes.