Re: Yet another starting hand question O8
 

[ QUOTE ]
I generally play any 4 cards that are 9 and above if there's at least a single suit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little tighter.

I do not play any starting hands where the lowest card is a 9, even if they are double suited. I think hands like 9JQK ds and 9JKK ds are not profitable. If I have double suited A9 with two big cards I may play it in position. The suited Ace adds value with a nut flush but it is too far from the 9 to be coordinated to make a straight. Even these A9 ds hands are marginal.

I'd rather wait for suited cards, Ten or higher.

Re: Yet another starting hand question O8
 

Chaos - From reading your posts, I think I probably play (rightly or wrongly) a good deal more loosely in ring games than you do.

However, one group of hands where we are in complete (or at least very close) agreement, are

[ QUOTE ]
starting hands where the lowest card is a 9, even if they are double suited.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think hands like 9JQK ds and 9JKK ds are not profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that over the course of a playing session one would be expected to do better for these particular starting hands by avoiding playing them than by seeing the flop with them. I would categorize both of these as sub-marginal starting hands.

But, depending on your opponents, there may be an advantage to playing more starting hands. And one way you play more starting hands is to include marginal or even sub-marginal hands as starters.
• One reason to play more starting hands may be that it's more difficult for opponents to put you on cards when you play more hands. Thus although you may show no gain or even a small average loss on these particular hands, your pay off with other hands may be higher. (Of course, if too few of your opponents are putting you on cards anyway, then it's silly to play these hands for this reason).
• Another reason may be that if you're playing opponents who are throwing their money away by playing almost everything and then chasing with poor flop fits, you have to be in the hand with them to catch some of the money they're throwing away. If you're sitting the hand out, although you're not risking anything, you're also not profiting from the poor pre-flop and post-flop play of opponents. (Of course, if a sufficient number of opponents don't play loosely before the flop and poorly after the flop, then it's silly to play these hands for this reason). I'm not suggesting playing as loosely before the flop as your loosest opponents - and I'm certainly not suggesting chasing after the flop with a poor fit - just that playing like a rock, although relatively safe, may not be the optimum strategy for everyone.
• A third reason for playing these hands is that when you play more starting hands, you might tend to get more action when you play your excellent starting hands. (Of course if your opponents give you just as much or nearly as much action when you play very tightly as when you loosen up, then it's silly to play these hands for this reason).

I'm not criticizing tight play. I'm sure I play more tighly than most of my opponents typically do. I'm just pointing out that besides being more fun and less boring to play more hands, depending on your opponents, it may be more profitable over the course of a playing session to play marginal and even sub-marginal starting hands. Let me make it very clear that I believe you still should play a disciplined game, exercising discretion and good sense both before and after the flop.

{quote]If I have double suited A9 with two big cards I may play it in position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree that these hands are better played in position. This is part of exercising discretion and good sense.

(I don't think we're actually very far apart on the playability of these hands although I probably play more of them than you. However, I do recognize them as poor starting hands and I do have the discipline to fold them when folding seems to me the best overall course of action.)

[ QUOTE ]
The .... Ace .... is too far from the 9 to be coordinated to make a straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Actually any honor card (ten for example) can only make one nut straight with an ace (AKQJT for example). By contrast, KT can make two nut straights, (AKQJT and KQJT9) while JT can make four (AKQJT and KQJT9, QJT98 and JT987).

Thus you're clearly not playing hands with aces because of the straight making capability of the aces. However, I'm sure you'll agree that aces are the most prefered cards you can be dealt. There's obviously more to playing hands with aces than making straights with them.

Even so, I strongly agree with you that A9 suffers as a two card combination because it cannot make a straight.

[ QUOTE ]
Even these A9 ds hands are marginal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I don't think you mean to include double suited AA9X hands, some of which are quite strong.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

Re: Yet another starting hand question O8
 

Yes you are right, Buzz. I was not thinking of AA9x ds when I wrote that. I agree that most AAxx ds hands are quite strong.

I do play some marginal hands to expand the range of hands that I'm playing for many of the reasons you stated. This includes some high card only hands. But I draw the line at Ten being the lowest card, and fold the nines.

Re: Yet another starting hand question O8
 

Buzz and Chaos you make good points about the 9s being a fairly weak holding for high hands. I'll experiment with laying off of them for a while, see how things work out. My uncle who plays O8 for a living was advocating playing any hand where the lowest card was 9. I tightened up this requirement, by only playing these hands if there is at least single suitedness. One question for you guys though, do you play offsuit cards where the 10 is the lowest card?

Re: Yet another starting hand question O8
 

[ QUOTE ]
My uncle who plays O8 for a living was advocating playing any hand where the lowest card was 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

As seen above, there are many arguments against playing a hand that includes a nine. One plus about having a nine in an all-high hand is that if a nine comes on the flop, it does not contribute to anyone's low hand. The problems with playing cards like 7s and 8s for high is that even if you make the hand, there may be a higher hand out, and even if you win high, there is that much less chance of scooping.

If you are going to be playing long odds for a high-only hand, you want a good chance of scooping the pot.

Re: Yet another starting hand question O8
 

Not a bad hand short handed in an unraised pot. However with the raise you are facing you could be against A2X(low). AAX(Low) etc. You have a medium pair and a possible straight / flush draw depending on the flop. I would have mucked this hand as it would be useful to have a two way, hand yours is more high orientated with possible draws. Shorthanded you are not going to get the pot odds for the draws. I can't see you winning any low so you could face a freeroll after the flop. All in all not a good play. You should have tried to limp in and get a miracle flop [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] <font color="blue"> </font>

Re: Yet another starting hand question O8
 

[ QUOTE ]
do you play offsuit cards where the 10 is the lowest card?

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally no, I prefer to wait for a suited hand. Having an Ace is better than not having one. But even hands like JQKA ns, JKAA ns, and KKAA ns are marginal. If I haven't played a hand in awhile I may play one of these hands with an Ace.