|
2, 3 for low - consensus
I'm curious to hear everyone's opinion on the value of 2,3 in a full, loose ring game.
Personally, it depends on the other two cards and their value as to a high pair, double suited, two other wheel cards,e tc. However, many players have been insisting to me that they hold 2,3 "no matter what" for the possible low value. One player even said that he had "never" folded 2,3. Curious. |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
Being new to the game, I was hanging in way too much with 2-3-x-x recently. I'd have to check my stats, but I'm sure that I'm less than break even in general with 2 3 hands. Seems like there's always at least 1 other person in every pot on Party hanging in with a bare 2 3 also, so it's a recipe for getting quartered.
Example I called a small raise with 2-3-4-Qss this morning, flop is A 5 Q, no suits, 4 of us ended up all-in. Turn K, River 8. One (retard) person took the high with 4-9-10-j(????wtf???), A-Q-x-x went down in flames, and I chopped for another guy with 2 3 low. It might just be me, but someone always has 2-3-x-x. Could just be at the low limits. |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
I think 2,3 is valuable in the sense that it's very easy to get away from if you don't see an A on the flop. In order to be playable, I think there has to be something else to it. I fold 2,3,8,Jos without a second thought. Another wheel card, or some kind of coordinated high cards make it playable to me.
|
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
[ QUOTE ]
I think 2,3 is valuable in the sense that it's very easy to get away from if you don't see an A on the flop. In order to be playable, I think there has to be something else to it. I fold 2,3,8,Jos without a second thought. Another wheel card, or some kind of coordinated high cards make it playable to me. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this. You want 23 with other cards that add value to your hand and good position doesn't hurt either. I will call with almost any 23 from the button though. |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
I'll play 23xx if I have 223x or 233x where X is either a suited K/Q or another wheel card (2345). With a relatively naked 23, not worth the effort.
|
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
Hi Bodie - There’s no sharp distinction between some starting hands I’m calling playable and some hands I’m calling marginal. The same is true for the dividing line between marginal starting hands and trash hands - no sharp distinction. If I redid any of the sims, I’d expect the numbers to turn out a bit differently, possibly shifting a particular hand from one category to another. It’s a matter of arbitrarily drawing the line somewhere.
My thinking is the marginal hands should mainly be played only on the button or small blind in an unraised pot. You hate to limp with one of these from early or middle position and then have the pot raised behind you. There are two categories of negatives for 23XY hands, each worth either one or two negative points. • (a) single suited is one negative point, rainbow is two negative points. • (b) one middle card is one negative point, two middle cards is two negative points. • Consider all 23XY hands with no negative points playable. • 23XY hands with one negative point are either playable or marginal. • Consider all 23XY hands with two negative points marginal. • 23XY hands with three negative points are either marginal or trash. • Consider all 23XY hands with four negative points trash. Following are some example hands. Look at them, count the negative points, and then decide whether to play them or not. #1. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #2. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #3. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #4. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #5. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #6. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #7. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #8. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #9. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #10. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #11. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> #12. 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. <font color="white">_</font> Hand #1 has two negatives because it’s a rainbow hand. Hand #2 has one negative because it’s only single suited. Hand #3 has no negatives. Hand #4 has three negatives. It’s a rainbow hand with a middle card. Hand #5 has one negative. It has one middle card. Hand #6 has three negatives: single suited (-1), two middle cards (-2). Hand #7 has no negatives. Hand #8 has two negatives: single suited (-1), one middle card (-1). Hand #9 has four negatives: rainbow (-2), two middle cards (-2). Hand #10 has two negatives because it’s a rainbow hand. Hand #11 has one negative: single suited. Hand #12. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] No negatives and therefore playable without doubt: #3, #7, #12. One negative. Playable or marginal. Use discretion: #2, #5, #11. Two negatives. Marginal. #1, #8, #10. Three negatives. Marginal or trash. Use discretion: #4, #6. Four negatives. Trash: #9. Fold it. You’ll feel a pang when the board has three eights, but you probably wouldn’t collect much from your opponents anyhow. It will also hurt when the board on the river is the perfect double-nut, non-flushed A456J, but that won’t happen much. [ QUOTE ] However, many players have been insisting to me that they hold 2,3 "no matter what" for the possible low value. [/ QUOTE ] Whatever. If you can see the flop for one small bet and if enough of your opponents also see the flop and tend to chase with poor or mediocre flop fits, then you're getting enormous implied pot odds. However, before the flop, when you hold something like 239Tn, you have to figure you're probably only playing for half the pot. And with a bare deuce-trey at a nine player table, you figure to get quartered or sixthed roughly two hands out of every five when your bare deuce-trey isn't counterfeited or beaten by an ace-deuce or ace-trey. (Roughly half the time at least one opponent will hold ace-deuce and roughly half the time at least one opponent will hold ace-trey. Roughly three times our of four when you hold 23XY at a nine player table, at least one opponent will hold either ace-deuce or ace-trey. Yeah, a bare deuce-trey is a nice low when it doesn't get counterfeited and when there's an ace on the board. And it's a nice low the (roughly) one time out of four when there's no ace on the board and nobody has an ace-deuce or ace-trey, but you'll dribble away more chips the many times you'll be chasing with those hands than you'll make the few times when they pay off. 23XY needs something else going it. And game and positional conditions have to be right to play the ones I've labeled as "marginal." Just my opinion. Buzz |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
[ QUOTE ]
I'll play 23xx if I have 223x or 233x where X is either a suited K/Q or another wheel card (2345). With a relatively naked 23, not worth the effort. [/ QUOTE ] Didn't note it but it should be obvious, this is a limp from position depending on the table. |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
You don't think #2 and #5 aren't decent?
It seems to me the value of them suited is only important so far as they are blockers to other people who would pursue the flush. I would think #2 if fairly strong... certainly it nearly always requires an ace... but if an ace and any low card hits, you will almost almost have the best draw to the wheel and you would be drawing to an uncounterfeitable low. |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
One point in favor of the lowly 3,2 that has not been posted: The 3,2 can flop more favorable lo draw/straight/draw combos than the A,3. Namely, if 65, 64, or 54 flop, these combo draws appear. I would be interested in any discussion concsrning the value of this, if any. Thank you.
|
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
[ QUOTE ]
You don't think #2 and #5 aren't decent? [/ QUOTE ] Kurto - Double negatives in questions ("don't" and "aren't") make the questions hard for me to read. I think #2 and #5 are decent. I do. But I don't think they're quite as good as some other hands in the list. [ QUOTE ] It seems to me the value of them suited is only important so far as they are blockers to other people who would pursue the flush. [/ QUOTE ] They clearly simuilate better if suited. I'll never forget the time I got knocked out of a tournament by someone playing a baby flush. Having a baby flush along with the nut low greatly increases the chances of scooping or getting three quarters. It does. [ QUOTE ] I would think #2 if fairly strong. [/ QUOTE ] I agree #2 is fairly strong. I was trying to come up with an easy way to generalize about which 23XY hands to play and which not to play. I started with the list of simulation results of all possible 23XY hands. Really too much detail there for anybody to reasonably remember and keep straight. I have all the hands "styled" by color according to whether I consider them playable, marginal or "trash" in my computer files. The thing that really stands out is how much better double suited hands do than single suited hands, and how much better single suited hands do than rainbows. That's not even my opinion. It's just clearly obvious - stands out like a sore thumb. Buzz |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
Buzz wrote,
"Whatever. If you can see the flop for one small bet and if enough of your opponents also see the flop and tend to chase with poor or mediocre flop fits, then you're getting enormous implied pot odds." This does happen alot where I play. Someone we both know just told me the other day that you should hold "any two low cards" because they just might make a low. What prompted this post was the fact that I folded: 2,3,8,8 rainbow (meanwhile thinking about all the "advice" regarding 2,3 I've been hearing lately). It was a kill pot and had been raised twice by the time it got to me, so it would have been $18.00 to call, and it got capped after me. I folded, and of course the flop was: 3,3,3 It was a huge pot, and though it was a freak flop, I thought I'd just see what others think of 2,3. |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
[ QUOTE ]
Buzz wrote, "Whatever. If you can see the flop for one small bet and if enough of your opponents also see the flop and tend to chase with poor or mediocre flop fits, then you're getting enormous implied pot odds." This does happen alot where I play. Someone we both know just told me the other day that you should hold "any two low cards" because they just might make a low. What prompted this post was the fact that I folded: 2,3,8,8 rainbow (meanwhile thinking about all the "advice" regarding 2,3 I've been hearing lately). It was a kill pot and had been raised twice by the time it got to me, so it would have been $18.00 to call, and it got capped after me. I folded, and of course the flop was: 3,3,3 It was a huge pot, and though it was a freak flop, I thought I'd just see what others think of 2,3. [/ QUOTE ] Man, that is also why I never fold 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. You never know when the flop will come 666,KKK,222,888, or 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. Seriously, you fold trash hands because they hit fewer flops than better hands not because they never hit flops. You don't want to pay a high price with a hand that is less likely to win money. 2388 is a clear fold to a bet and raise preflop. |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
O8 newbie here, take my words with a grain of salt.
23 is a decent low, but I want more options. I don't think it's necessarily strong enough to take without any other benefits (options for high, suited, whatever). Being an O8 newbie, I think of it this way -- I have six two-card hands; I'm not going to play on the strength of just one. A2 is better because of the ace, in case I get counterfeited for low, but I still like to see more options -- suits, more low cards, etc. Not that I'll fold a lot of A2 hands, but the more I have, the happier I am. Long story short, 23 is good, but not enough to merit play with two crappy cards alongside. |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
Hi Cooker,
"2388 is a clear fold to a bet and raise preflop." And that's why I folded it. But it did motivate me to ask the posters here on 2+2 what their thoughts are on the conditions under which they will play 2,3. It amounts to the same conditions under which I already play them: ideally single or double suited, either with a high pair or two other "good" wheel cards. The nature of O8 keeps those playing who will play any four cards they are dealt over and over again - they can scoop just often enough that they have fun. I.e. flops like 3,3,3. The funny thing about that hand was that it kept four callers until the end. You can guess who won it: the player with pocket Aces. There was no low. One of those crazy killpots which many players like to build so that they can throw the dice and hope to be the one to win it. |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
In a full, loose, ring game, I dont muck 2-3 unless it's two or three bets to me.
Some players will play any ace in H/L, so, note those players, and if some of them are in and it's looking like a seven way pot before you come in, i'd release a 2-3, because, the key card for your hand, an A, might not be available.... |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
Hi Bodie -
From your reply to Cooker, I realize you know this already, but after missing out on a nice scooper with quad treys, I think there are some ideas worth reinforcing. Cooker wrote, [ QUOTE ] "you fold trash hands because they hit <font color="white">_</font>fewer flops than better hands not because they <font color="white">_</font>never hit flops." [/ QUOTE ] That’s pretty close and nicely succinct. But I’d phrase it slightly differently. You fold trash hands because they <font color="white">_</font>win less and <font color="white">_</font>scoop less than better hands, not because they <font color="white">_</font>never win or scoop. Your post was about 2388n, not 6788d or TJQQd, but allow me to use those two hands to illustrate how two different hands can hit the flop just as often as each other, and even end up with every category of high hand the same - but one of the two hands is clearly a better starting hand than the other. I consider 6788d to be a “trash” hand while I consider TJQQd to be a “playable” hand. However, 6788d hits the flop just as often as TJQQd. The difference, in a nine handed game, is that TJQQd ends up <font color="white">_</font>winning more than 6788d. Below is the simulation data: hand.....high...low...scoop...total <font color="red">6788d.....519.....12.....355.....866</font> <font color="blue">TJQQd.....653.....0.....875.....1528</font> Both are against eight random hands with random boards, dealt 10,000 times. If you think of a royal flush as an ace-high straight flush (which it is) then they both figure to make the same number of straight flushes. Indeed, both hands figure to make every category of high hand (straights, flushes, full houses, quads, trips etc.) the same number of times. In addition, 6788d sometimes wins for low, whereas TJQQd can never win for low. However, you don’t have to be a math wizard to see from the simulation numbers that TJQQd is clearly a better starting hand than 6788d. As a comparison, here are the numbers for 2388n, the actual hand you held: hand.....high...low...scoop...total <font color="red">2388n.....219.....528.....275.....1022 </font> In the typical low limit Omaha-8 games in which you play, you figure to do better by folding 2388n from every position (except the unraised big blind). The long and the short of it is there are plenty of other starting hands that you should be playing that are better than 2388n. I have over 1500 hand types listed in my nine-handed data bank that I think are better starting hands than 2388n - and all possible hand types are not listed in my main data bank. (There surely are many additional hands better than 2388n that I don’t have listed). You don’t need sub-par hands to get lots of action. I know you enjoy playing for jackpots. I can’t remember if you need quad tens or better beaten to qualify for the jackpot where you play, or if any quads beaten qualifies. I know that quad treys with three on the board and one in your hand does not qualify. (You need two in your hand and two in the board for a hand with quads to qualify as a possible jackpot hand - and then you need someone to have a better hand). In a nine player game, if nobody folds, I think 2388n might make quad eights and be beaten by a better hand approximately one time in 140,000 or 150,000 - something like that. But the casino is not going to pay $140,000 or $150,000 when quad eights are beaten. They’re only going to give the table a fraction of that (if, indeed, quad eights beaten even qualifies for the big bad-beat jackpot - maybe it’s quad tens or better beaten). So if you’re thinking that you might win the jackpot with 2388n, the jackpot aspect doesn’t add enough value to the hand to make it playable. And flopping quads with any hand is obviously a freak. Even if you’re playing KKQQd (a hand you should be playing), you’ll only flop quads 92 times out of 17296 - one time in 188. I believe that anybody who told you any hand with two low cards is playable gave you poor advice. But although poor (IMHO), it might not have been malevolent. The person advising you might actually think that you should see the flop with any two low cards. I don’t. Maybe the person meant any two wheel cards. But I don’t even think you should see the flop with any two wheel cards, (let alone any two low cards). At any rate, you clearly did right in folding the 2388n to a double bet on the first betting round. IMHO, it’s not close. 2388n is not even worth playing for a single bet - not even with the enormous implied pot odds you get for seeing the flop if almost everybody else limps and if, in addition, there are a couple of calling stations at the table. But I do know how frustrated I feel when I fold what would have been a winner before the flop - especially when three opponents go to the river after I’ve folded. It’s small consolation to know you played correctly. My condolences. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Just my opinion. Buzz |
Amendment:
I originally wrote
[ QUOTE ] There are two categories of negatives for 23XY hands, each worth either one or two negative points. • (a) single suited is one negative point, rainbow is two negative points. • (b) one middle card is one negative point, two middle cards is two negative points. • Consider all 23XY hands with no negative points playable. • 23XY hands with one negative point are either playable or marginal. • Consider all 23XY hands with two negative points marginal. • 23XY hands with three negative points are either marginal or trash. • Consider all 23XY hands with four negative points trash. [/ QUOTE ] That still seems reasonable to me. <font color="blue">Except for 23KKn and 23QQn</font>. I think both of those are playable (rather than either playable or marginal), even though they have the two negative points for being rainbows. I think you should see the flop from any position with either of those starting hands. Thinking back to Kurto's post, I'd probably almost always see the flop with the two hands he cited. But in the interest of keeping things simple, neither of them seems worth singling out. However, both 23KKn and 23QQn are worth singling out. Just my opinion. Buzz |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
Hi Buzz,
Thanks for the reply. The jackpot for O8 where I play requires quad 9's or better beaten. So there was no possiblity of a jackpot with that hand anyway. But oddly enough, just before that hand a certain person had told me that he *always* plays any two low cards, he didn't specify if they had to be wheel cards or not. Then of course along came that hand and I thought to myself, I have to post to 2+2 and find out the consensus on playing 2,3 there. It is a small consolation to know one has played "correctly" as you watch your erstwhile folded hand turn out to be the nuts. It usually doesn't bother me unless I had considered playing the hand and then decided not to. Then it can hurt, especially in those wild action games where players just want to "gamble" and cap the betting every round. Oh well. It's all part of the game. Bodie |
Re: Amendment:
Buzz,
I did think of your strategy the other day when playing, and it automatically fell in line with what I would have played anyway (I was pleased to see). |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
Omaha is a 4 card game...RULE # ONE. Regardless of how loose a om8 game is, 23xx rarely wins more than half the pot to show a profit. In a loose om8 game, you can expect the majority of A5xx and A4xx, plus any Axsuitedxx to be played...thus, when an A hits the flop and gives you a low draw, or the nut low...loose om8 players are RARELY folding their top pair...thus you are usually looking at half the pot from the start. This leads to RULE # TWO: om8 is all about scooping...THAT is where the real money is to be made...ESPECIALLY in loose om8 games.
THE FOOL |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
[ QUOTE ]
Omaha is a 4 card game...RULE # ONE. Regardless of how loose a om8 game is, 23xx rarely wins more than half the pot to show a profit. [/ QUOTE ] Fool - Well... you got part of it right. You’re correct that the deuce-trey two-card combination rarely wins more than half the pot. But since you are aware that you get dealt four cards, you must realize you’re not just dealt a deuce and a trey. Do you think maybe there are some cards we can put with the deuce and the trey such that the hand might show a profit when played well? How about a pair of jacks, one the same suit as the deuce and the other the same suit as the trey? How do you think that hand fares? 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. How does that hand do? Do you think maybe it’s worth seeing the flop for a bet with that hand? I do. Here is simulation data for the hand in a nine handed game, 10000 runs: hand.....high...low...scoop...total <font color="blue">23JJd.....267.....609.....780.....165 6</font> Or how about 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]? Is that one playable? <font color="white">_</font> <font color="white">_</font> <font color="white">_</font> I think so. nine handed, 10000 runs: hand.....high...low...scoop...total <font color="blue">23QKd.....388.....588.....668.....164 4</font> They’re not spectacular. Just solid, very playable hands. Notice that scoops make a greater contribution to the winning total than the low alone. I didn’t pick the best other two cards to go with the deuce and trey. If you exclude aces, that would be a pair of kings, one suited to the deuce and the other suited to the trey. But there are lots of other two-card combinations that, when combined with a deuce and a trey to make a four card hand, can be profitably played. But not all other two card combinations. 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], for example, would not be a very good starting hand. nine handed, 10000 runs: hand.....high...low...scoop...total <font color="red">2378n.....211.....603.....166.....980</font> And some other two card combinations added to the deuce-trey would make marginal starting hands, 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], for example, seems marginal to me. nine handed, 10000 runs: hand.....high...low...scoop...total <font color="green">23TTs.....182.....640.....557.....13 79</font> Bottom line: Some 23XY hands seem playable for a profit, some seem marginal, and others seem poor. 23XY hands are neither pure black nor pure white. Some are a lighter shade of gray, while others are a darker shade of gray. [ QUOTE ] In a loose om8 game, you can expect the majority of A5xx and A4xx, plus any Axsuitedxx to be played...thus, when an A hits the flop and gives you a low draw, or the nut low...loose om8 players are RARELY folding their top pair...thus you are usually looking at half the pot from the start. [/ QUOTE ] That is also true of A2XY hands. But for either 23XY hands or A2XY hands.... well.... it’s sort of a half truth and therefore very misleading. When there’s no ace in the hand, then the most prominent feature of most 23XY hands is probably the deuce-trey, and that’s primarily a low combo. So, yes, you’re going to win the low half the pot more often than you’ll scoop. But some 23XY hands (for example, 23JJd, and 23QKd), actually figure to profit more by scooping than by just winning the low halves, although they’ll win the low halves more often than they’ll scoop (but not twice as often). [ QUOTE ] This leads to RULE # TWO: om8 is all about scooping...THAT is where the real money is to be made...ESPECIALLY in loose om8 games. [/ QUOTE ] Another half truth. Omaha-8 isn’t “all” about scooping. Certainly your objective should be to scoop. Certainly you want to play starting hands that have a good chance to scoop. And, yes, “THAT is where the real money is to be made.” But that’s not all there is to the game. Only a fool would think that’s all there is to the game. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist). [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Buzz |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
of course...absolutely.
i was basically responding to how the question was stated. the question was stated in isolation, hence my answer... THE FOOL |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
i just noticed that you continued to bloviate in your post...my apologies for not scrolling for 2 hrs. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
and yes, the "objective" for LOOSE om8 games (not tight/agg) is to play tighter, and try and start with the best possible POTENTIAL SCOOPING HAND--in the words of Scotty N. "That's what its ALL about bbbbaby!" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] THE FOOL |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
The one who never folded 2,3 is a MORON!!! Please send him to my table ASAP! Can always use another dead money fish to play with. A/2 is sh*t with now high draw, so how can 2,3 be any better...lol I just love how ppl rationalize bad play. Muck it every time.
|
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
MUCK it EVERYTIME---BABY!
Finally some sense...good naked A2 comment too. THE FOOL |
Re: 2, 3 for low - consensus
[ QUOTE ]
A/2 is sh*t with now high draw, so how can 2,3 be any better... [/ QUOTE ] Knoll - Are you serious? Do you really not see how it is possible for a hand with a deuce and a trey to be a better starting hand than a hand with an ace and a deuce? Basically there are three ways a starting hand with a deuce and a trey can be better than a starting hand with an ace and a deuce. • 1. The other two cards in the hand with the deuce and trey can be better high cards than the other two cards in the hand with the ace and deuce. (eg. 23KKn compared to A299n). • 2. The other two cards in the hand with the deuce and trey can be better low cards than the other two cards in the hand with the ace and deuce. (eg. 2345n compared to A278n) • 3.The hand with the deuce and trey can have a better chance to make a winning flush than the hand with the ace and a deuce. Double suited starting hands make more flushes than single suited starting hands and rainbow hands don't make any flushes at all. Any of these three factors alone is not usually enough to make up the difference between the strength of a starting hand with ace-deuce and a starting hand with deuce-trey. But a combination of #1+#3 or #2+#3 often is. For example, based on simulations, in a nine or ten player game, 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] is a better starting hand than <font color="white">_</font> A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Both of those starting hands are generally very playable, although not exceptionally strong. Based on simulation results, the A-2-6-6-n is expected to win more often for low, but the 2-3-Q-Q-d is expected to scoop substantially more often and also figures to win more overall. Buzz |
Re: Amendment:
Buzz,
I would add a couple more hands to the playable list that by score alone would be marginal: 2345n 2346n I think the straight making possibilities offer enough high potential to compensate for not being suited. |
Re: Amendment:
Chaos - Thanks. I agree.
Buzz |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.