Standard 10/20 preflop play?

[ErrantNight]

what's up with all you weak tighties!?

[ErrantNight]

don't listen to howard. KQo is a great hand. he has yet to make an argument for it being a trouble hand. why is it a trouble hand? you're "in trouble" against AK and AQ and approximately nothing else. why would you ever assume that AK and/or AQ are out there, just because you have KQ?

against a raise, their possibility is enough to make KQo a pretty easy fold most of the time... but behind a limp? that's monsters-under-the-bed thinking to look down at KQo and think you're in trouble.

[mack848]

[ QUOTE ]

Back to the questions. To get a better idea of what's appropriate at 10/20 the Mid-High forum would serve you better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. SS is the correct place for 10/20 live IMHO

[ QUOTE ]
don't listen to howard. KQo is a great hand. he has yet to make an argument for it being a trouble hand. why is it a trouble hand? you're "in trouble" against AK and AQ and approximately nothing else. why would you ever assume that AK and/or AQ are out there, just because you have KQ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Check it out on twodimes.net for yourself. KQo is a dog to A3s by ~ 60/40 depending on the suits. To A5o it's something like 58.5/41.5. At 10-20, esp. w/o a raise, lots of players will play any ace, and love to play suited aces. The KQo is a dog to those hands. It's a dog to a pair of 8's. Just because there are other hands (A-Q, like you said) to which KQo is a real big dog doesn't mean that it does so well against many others, which it doesn't. That doesn't mean to be a sissy with them it just means they can be a trouble hand.

pokenum -h ah 5d - kc qs
Holdem Hi: 1712304 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
5d Ah 989977 57.82 715566 41.79 6761 0.39 0.580
Qs Kc 715566 41.79 989977 57.82 6761 0.39 0.420

[ErrantNight]

i'm not even going to justify this with a response. play more poker.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All the prior folds indicate the deck should now be rich in big cards.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to say this nicely. This is not the most brilliant statement ever posted on this site.



[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I should have been more careful with the way I said that. And saying it nicely is very much appreciated.

When 5 hands are folded then a little under 20% of the deck has been removed. In 10-20 what cards can we assume have been folded? I assume that "bad" cards have been folded, those belonging to the lower 2/3 of the deck. Is this always the case? Of course not, but the likelihood of the remaining cards being more heavily weighted towards the top 1/3 of the deck are increased. You know that you're going to see overs to a small pair very, very often. 10 folded cards increases the chances of that happening. What then? I don't want to guess where I'm at in a hand and I certainly don't like bleeding off chips in stubborn pursuit. Additionally, I didn't offer that observation as a general rule to play by, just a factor to take into account. If I felt that the CO in that situation would raise with any two it's one thing. If I had respect for that player it's another. I usually don't like small pairs in that spot, but that's me, and it's certainly not the view of many others. I'd rather save my $20 or $30 for a better situation.

Also, the observation I made isn't my own thought, original to me, although I'm sure I'd have realized it sooner or later. If I had it at my fingertips I could point to who knows how many books that bring it up.

[ErrantNight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All the prior folds indicate the deck should now be rich in big cards.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to say this nicely. This is not the most brilliant statement ever posted on this site.



[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I should have been more careful with the way I said that. And saying it nicely is very much appreciated.

When 5 hands are folded then a little under 20% of the deck has been removed. In 10-20 what cards can we assume have been folded? I assume that "bad" cards have been folded, those belonging to the lower 2/3 of the deck. Is this always the case? Of course not, but the likelihood of the remaining cards being more heavily weighted towards the top 1/3 of the deck are increased. You know that you're going to see overs to a small pair very, very often. 10 folded cards increases the chances of that happening. What then? I don't want to guess where I'm at in a hand and I certainly don't like bleeding off chips in stubborn pursuit. Additionally, I didn't offer that observation as a general rule to play by, just a factor to take into account. If I felt that the CO in that situation would raise with any two it's one thing. If I had respect for that player it's another. I usually don't like small pairs in that spot, but that's me, and it's certainly not the view of many others. I'd rather save my $20 or $30 for a better situation.

Also, the observation I made isn't my own thought, original to me, although I'm sure I'd have realized it sooner or later. If I had it at my fingertips I could point to who knows how many books that bring it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

this post is worse than your last one. just stop.

[ErrantNight]

to be a little bit more specific:
[ QUOTE ]
When 5 hands are folded then a little under 20% of the deck has been removed. In 10-20 what cards can we assume have been folded? I assume that "bad" cards have been folded, those belonging to the lower 2/3 of the deck. Is this always the case? Of course not, but the likelihood of the remaining cards being more heavily weighted towards the top 1/3 of the deck are increased.

[/ QUOTE ]

is a useless thought process. it avails you naught. it's pointless. it is without worth or merit. don't trouble yourself with it.

[Aces McGee]

Hand 1: 3 bet.
Hand 2: Good fold.
Hand 3: Raise. KQo isn't a great multiway hand, but is too strong to fold here.

-McGee

Was that to me? If so, I wish you'd sit in my game and teach me.