Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

I expect some good debate early on this one so don't let me down.

This is a typical Party evening lowest limit table filled with bad players who almost never raise preflop and go too far with their hands. No individual reads. What do you do?

Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. UTG+2 posts a blind of $0.5.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero ??

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

Fold. It's close though. I'd limp one gappers, but for two gappers I need Q9s or better here. If you can expect it to be 7-handed for one bet you can limp, but I really want position with this hand.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

"No individual reads."
I stopped reading right there. This situation is only +EV if you can make a move or the players pay you off if you hit. With no reads, the likelihood of either is uncertain. So to me, no reads means no play.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fold. It's close though. I'd limp one gappers, but for two gappers I need Q9s or better here. If you can expect it to be 7-handed for one bet you can limp, but I really want position with this hand.
Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little tighter than this, but not much.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

Fold. I could be talked into playing this on the button with a bunch of bad limpers already in for one bet, but UTG+1 I am folding this.

Edit: Like Entity, I would limp with Q9s, so I suppose limping with J8s can't be a major leak. I still wouldn't do it though.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

Even bad players get hands, so with that position I would fold, if you get raised that would suck. Also you have to be sure you can get enough limpers to make a call good. Too many people play J10, QJ, etc. so you high card value is not there. If I were on the button after the limpers then I may call.
Calling is not terrible.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
I could be talked into playing this on the button with a bunch of bad limpers already in for one bet,

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn't take much convincing. I'm playing J7s and Q8s and lots of suited hands there, even if there aren't "lots" of limpers.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fold. It's close though. I'd limp one gappers, but for two gappers I need Q9s or better here. If you can expect it to be 7-handed for one bet you can limp, but I really want position with this hand.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant to put earlier that the typical flop had 5-6 players and no preflop raise.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

Ok, here's a question for all the people who fold here (which is everybody I guess lol). Do you limp in with 22 on this table? 33? 44 55? Let me know.

Remember these are bad players. Not some 10/20 game somewhere.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
I meant to put earlier that the typical flop had 5-6 players and no preflop raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

based on that info: i'd limp. i think it is an easy hand to get away from if things sour on the flop, but profitable with so many people calling with junk...too loose am i?

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, here's a question for all the people who fold here (which is everybody I guess lol). Do you limp in with 22 on this table? 33? 44 55? Let me know.

Remember these are bad players. Not some 10/20 game somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pocket pairs are very easy limps in this sort of game, but comparing the way that a hand like 22 plays out OOP to the way J8s plays out OOP is ridiculous.

You seem to undervalue position in every hand you've posted so far.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, here's a question for all the people who fold here (which is everybody I guess lol). Do you limp in with 22 on this table? 33? 44 55? Let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Small pocket pairs are much easier to play postflop than this hand -- fit or fold gives you great implied odds into a big field. With this hand, you don't know how many ppl will come in, and you're out of position for the rest of the hand. Not a problem if you flop the flush, but more often you'll make bottom pair, 2nd pair, or similar that's going to be a bear to play out.

I guess I'm tighter than a few of the earlier posters; I chuck this without a second thought. (At least they had to think [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

Yes, they are bad, but they still get cards (whoever quoted this earlier in the thread is right)
Just because they are bad doesn't mean you can completely outplay everyone on the flop. You can't feel really good without a club flop, as your J is weak. I'm just not convinced that this is an +EV situation. Give me the button or the CO, and i'm here in a second.
And i'd limp any small/medium pocket pairs from anywhere at this table. Pocket pairs are highly EV when you get 3 or 4 callers, because when you flop a set you're best probally 65-70% of the time.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to undervalue position in every hand you've posted so far.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table. These guys play badly and I want to give them a chance to play badly against me.

When I get on an agressive table (which I don't really like) I will play much tighter up front.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pocket pairs are highly EV when you get 3 or 4 callers, because when you flop a set you're best probally 65-70% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're including pocket pairs 55 and lower in this statement then I disagree completely.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture.

That said, I understand your desire to play hands like this, and this is a good choice for a hand that is right on the cusp here. But would you play T7s? T8s?

Your hand is good multiway but in any game -- even a passive game -- is helped MUCH by the benefit of position.

3 limpers limp behind you, SB completes, BB checks. 7 to the flop for 7SB. Flop comes J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets. Now what's the right play here?

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pocket pairs are highly EV when you get 3 or 4 callers, because when you flop a set you're best probally 65-70% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're including pocket pairs 55 and lower in this statement then I disagree completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part do you disagree with? Any PP is generally profitable when the flop is seen 5-ways or more; at 4-ways it depends on game texture. When you flop a set, on the average, your equity will be around 75% -- sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, here's a question for all the people who fold here (which is everybody I guess lol). Do you limp in with 22 on this table? 33? 44 55? Let me know.

Remember these are bad players. Not some 10/20 game somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I would limp with any pocket pair UTG at this level. Of course, my position isn't going to matter postflop I have a PP; either I make my set or I'm gone.

A hand like J8s is the kind of hand where you strongly prefer to have position.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pocket pairs are highly EV when you get 3 or 4 callers, because when you flop a set you're best probally 65-70% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're including pocket pairs 55 and lower in this statement then I disagree completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part do you disagree with? Any PP is generally profitable when the flop is seen 5-ways or more; at 4-ways it depends on game texture. When you flop a set, on the average, your equity will be around 75% -- sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree if he's saying that pocket pairs of 55 and lower are highly EV if you get 3 or 4 callers. Not only are they not highly EV they are not +EV at all with 3 or 4 callers. Surely you know this, Rob? (and don't call me shirley)

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pocket pairs are highly EV when you get 3 or 4 callers, because when you flop a set you're best probally 65-70% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're including pocket pairs 55 and lower in this statement then I disagree completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part do you disagree with? Any PP is generally profitable when the flop is seen 5-ways or more; at 4-ways it depends on game texture. When you flop a set, on the average, your equity will be around 75% -- sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree if he's saying that pocket pairs of 55 and lower are highly EV if you get 3 or 4 callers. Not only are they not highly EV they are not +EV at all with 3 or 4 callers. Surely you know this, Rob? (and don't call me shirley)

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what you mean by "3 or 4" callers. If you mean you limp, one other person limps, the SB completes, and the BB checks, then generally they won't be profitable (if the game is passive).

OTOH, if you mean 3 or 4 callers as in you limp, 3 other players limp, the SB completes, and the BB checks, your hand will generally be profitable, moreso when any of the players have a tendency toward postflop aggression (which again helps a hand like 33 and not a hand like J8s). The fact that you're getting 5:1 on a call in such a situation dictates you'll need to make up around 3SB's postflop when you hit your set for your limp to be profitable, and even in the most passive games, it's hard not to make up that small of a deficit.

I think you're overvaluing suited cards and undervaluing pocket pairs, but it could be that we're just arguing semantics. It's rare that I find a situation where pocket pairs aren't profitable limps, but I can find many situations where suited two gappers aren't.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture.

That said, I understand your desire to play hands like this, and this is a good choice for a hand that is right on the cusp here. But would you play T7s? T8s?

Your hand is good multiway but in any game -- even a passive game -- is helped MUCH by the benefit of position.

3 limpers limp behind you, SB completes, BB checks. 7 to the flop for 7SB. Flop comes J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets. Now what's the right play here?

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I call planning to raise a non-heart non-ace turn.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture.

That said, I understand your desire to play hands like this, and this is a good choice for a hand that is right on the cusp here. But would you play T7s? T8s?

Your hand is good multiway but in any game -- even a passive game -- is helped MUCH by the benefit of position.

3 limpers limp behind you, SB completes, BB checks. 7 to the flop for 7SB. Flop comes J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets. Now what's the right play here?

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I call planning to raise a non-heart non-ace turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that raising TPNK is going to be profitable in general when you're getting led into on the flop by a noted passive player. Yeah, there's a chance he's betting a flush draw, but is the chance of that greater than something like QJ, JT, etc? This is one of those situations where reverse implied odds comes into play, where raising sucks but so does calling, and folding isn't right either.

That's why I don't like being out of position with these hands. There's probably a sample size issue, but I honestly doubt they're profitable for most good players in the first couple of seats.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're overvaluing suited cards and undervaluing pocket pairs, but it could be that we're just arguing semantics. It's rare that I find a situation where pocket pairs aren't profitable limps, but I can find many situations where suited two gappers aren't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Against 5 opponents 22 will win less than 18% of the time whereas J8s will win 24% of the time. Remember, I said this table was passive. I think I'd much rather play the J8s than 22.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture.

That said, I understand your desire to play hands like this, and this is a good choice for a hand that is right on the cusp here. But would you play T7s? T8s?

Your hand is good multiway but in any game -- even a passive game -- is helped MUCH by the benefit of position.

3 limpers limp behind you, SB completes, BB checks. 7 to the flop for 7SB. Flop comes J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets. Now what's the right play here?

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I call planning to raise a non-heart non-ace turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that raising TPNK is going to be profitable in general when you're getting led into on the flop by a noted passive player. Yeah, there's a chance he's betting a flush draw, but is the chance of that greater than something like QJ, JT, etc? This is one of those situations where reverse implied odds comes into play, where raising sucks but so does calling, and folding isn't right either.

That's why I don't like being out of position with these hands. There's probably a sample size issue, but I honestly doubt they're profitable for most good players in the first couple of seats.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you don't want to play that flop then you can play it like 22 and fold. I think I'd rather stick around but I'm stubborn that way.

John

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're overvaluing suited cards and undervaluing pocket pairs, but it could be that we're just arguing semantics. It's rare that I find a situation where pocket pairs aren't profitable limps, but I can find many situations where suited two gappers aren't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Against 5 opponents 22 will win less than 18% of the time whereas J8s will win 24% of the time. Remember, I said this table was passive. I think I'd much rather play the J8s than 22.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't all about showdown equity. In fact, it's rarely about showdown equity. It's about implied odds and reverse implied odds, and your opponents don't have random hands here.

Reverse implied odds can suck with a hand like J8s. They very very very rarely suck with 22. I really hope you can see the difference between these things.

If you're saying that 22 isn't profitable based on showdown equity estimations, you're WAY off.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture.

That said, I understand your desire to play hands like this, and this is a good choice for a hand that is right on the cusp here. But would you play T7s? T8s?

Your hand is good multiway but in any game -- even a passive game -- is helped MUCH by the benefit of position.

3 limpers limp behind you, SB completes, BB checks. 7 to the flop for 7SB. Flop comes J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets. Now what's the right play here?

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I call planning to raise a non-heart non-ace turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that raising TPNK is going to be profitable in general when you're getting led into on the flop by a noted passive player. Yeah, there's a chance he's betting a flush draw, but is the chance of that greater than something like QJ, JT, etc? This is one of those situations where reverse implied odds comes into play, where raising sucks but so does calling, and folding isn't right either.

That's why I don't like being out of position with these hands. There's probably a sample size issue, but I honestly doubt they're profitable for most good players in the first couple of seats.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you don't want to play that flop then you can play it like 22 and fold. I think I'd rather stick around but I'm stubborn that way.

John

[/ QUOTE ]

You're completely missing the point I was trying to illustrate, which is that 22 is an easy fold in these situations, which is why reverse implied odds are much worse on a hand like J8s. Hot/cold equity is not the way to determine which hand you'd rather have.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

I don't care *how often* I win. All I care about is *how much* I win.

When 22 wins, it will almost always be because I made a set, which I will be able to bet aggressively in order to maximize the pot I'm about to drag.

When J8s wins, it will often be because my uber-weak TP held up, or because I got lucky and sucked out on the turn or river. I'm going to have to do a bunch of calling and hoping in this hand and if I drag a large pot, it will frequently be a pot that my opponents built, not me. Note also that J8s is far more likely to get me to a losing showdown than 22.

I'm reasonably happy with my post-flop play, but there's just no question that 22 is going to be a far easier hand to play postflop that J8s. The size of the pot you pull down will reflect that.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're saying that 22 isn't profitable based on showdown equity estimations, you're WAY off.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that 22 isn't profitable UTG against "3 or 4 callers". I don't see how that can be way off.

John

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're saying that 22 isn't profitable based on showdown equity estimations, you're WAY off.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that 22 isn't profitable UTG against "3 or 4 callers". I don't see how that can be way off.

John

[/ QUOTE ]

3 or 4 callers would dictate that we're got a 5 or 6-way pot, right? Or are you considering the BB to be a caller? I'm just trying to clarify.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're overvaluing suited cards and undervaluing pocket pairs, but it could be that we're just arguing semantics. It's rare that I find a situation where pocket pairs aren't profitable limps, but I can find many situations where suited two gappers aren't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Against 5 opponents 22 will win less than 18% of the time whereas J8s will win 24% of the time. Remember, I said this table was passive. I think I'd much rather play the J8s than 22.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not a good way to look at these two hands. J8s has more ways to win and will win a higher % of the time when it's taken to showdown. That is undeniable. However getting to showdown will cost you a buttload with J8s and you'll lose with it in expensive ways and not be able to pump it when you do hit it. This drastically cuts the profitablility and EV of J8s. 22 on the other hand is an easy flop fold when you miss but when you hit you can make serious bank. It is a ridiculously easy hand to play.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

Just as a general aside, I just ran the following PT query:

I selected 22 and J8s, then filtered for pots that were 5-handed or less where I limped in EP or MP.

22 is 0BB/hand (breakeven). J8s is -.52BB/hand. 46 samples of J8s, 78 samples of 22.

I then recreated the filter for times where the pot was 5-handed or more. Now J8s is showing a -.73bb/hand loss, and 22 is +.08BB/hand.

Obviously I've got sample size issues for both as I'm pulling from a database of only 87,000 hands. That said, it's relatively easy for me to tell which of these is more profitable to play out of position.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care *how often* I win. All I care about is *how much* I win.

When 22 wins, it will almost always be because I made a set, which I will be able to bet aggressively in order to maximize the pot I'm about to drag.

When J8s wins, it will often be because my uber-weak TP held up, or because I got lucky and sucked out on the turn or river. I'm going to have to do a bunch of calling and hoping in this hand and if I drag a large pot, it will frequently be a pot that my opponents built, not me. Note also that J8s is far more likely to get me to a losing showdown than 22.

I'm reasonably happy with my post-flop play, but there's just no question that 22 is going to be a far easier hand to play postflop that J8s. The size of the pot you pull down will reflect that.

[/ QUOTE ]

On an aggressive table I agree with you completely. You don't want to suck along with a half assed draw or weak TP with J8s when everybody is raising.

On a passive table though they're going to give you a chance to hit your draws. PLUS, if you have 22 and hit your set (what, 1 out of 8 times?) then you're not going to get the postflop action like you will on an aggressive table. AND AND, since there's not a lot of action that goober with the gutshot is going to call along and beat you on the river (every damned time it seems lol).

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture.


[/ QUOTE ]

besides your cards, and villians cards .. in anygame where position is locked in place HE,Omaha, Draw having position is always a plus

I think most seasoned players fall in love with the button, that and getting a rock to your left so you get it twice a round

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

Also, in 87k hands, here are my stats on pairs that I VPIP'd when the pot was 5-handed or less. 44 and 22 are losing, the rest are winning, by a fair margin. Now that I've worked quite extensively on my postflop play, I feel comfortable limping 22 UTG in almost any game I play. When combined, my pocket pairs 55 and down are profitable when the pot is 5-handed or less, and are very profitable 5-handed+.

starting_hand times_dealt win_pct amt_won avg_per_hand co_bb_hand

AA 374 79.9465 2285.44 6.1108 3.0065
KK 413 69.7337 1867.79 4.5225 2.1407
QQ 387 63.0491 912.52 2.3579 1.4339
JJ 354 59.0395 915.76 2.5869 1.1502
TT 407 53.8084 863.92 2.1227 0.8793
99 331 48.9426 437.42 1.3215 0.6648
88 332 47.8916 251.61 0.7579 0.3186
77 321 47.0405 384.93 1.1992 0.6713
66 302 35.0993 82.16 0.2721 0.0459
55 279 36.2007 58.91 0.2111 0.266
44 224 27.6786 48.14 0.2149 -0.0114
33 199 23.6181 -0.5 -0.0025 0.0109
22 155 21.9355 -57.25 -0.3694 -0.0843

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

do you limp sml pockets in 6max UTG entity? 22-66

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just as a general aside, I just ran the following PT query:

I selected 22 and J8s, then filtered for pots that were 5-handed or less where I limped in EP or MP.

22 is 0BB/hand (breakeven). J8s is -.52BB/hand. 46 samples of J8s, 78 samples of 22.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just did the same thing. J8s was +1.31BB/hand and 22 was -0.62 BB/hand. Do you play on more aggressive tables as a rule? Of course my sample size is much smaller than yours.



John

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

Your sample size must be very low. Your numbers for J8s and 22 are both way out of whack in terms of absolute value, like by an order of magnitude.

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
do you limp sml pockets in 6max UTG entity? 22-66

[/ QUOTE ]

I raise 66 and occasionally 55 depending on my image. 22-44 I usually fold depending on the table, because it's not uncommon to have most, if not all, flops seen 4-ways for 3 bets, which is where I don't really care much for 22 and 33 and such.

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just as a general aside, I just ran the following PT query:

I selected 22 and J8s, then filtered for pots that were 5-handed or less where I limped in EP or MP.

22 is 0BB/hand (breakeven). J8s is -.52BB/hand. 46 samples of J8s, 78 samples of 22.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just did the same thing. J8s was +1.31BB/hand and 22 was -0.62 BB/hand. Do you play on more aggressive tables as a rule? Of course my sample size is much smaller than yours.



John

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sample size has got to be tiny for J8s to be showing +1.3bb/hand in that instance. It's not worth close to that, and -.62bb/hand for 22 is amazing as well -- I'm not sure how the hell you'd achieve that without donking postflop pretty badly (unless again, your sample size is tiny).

Rob

Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your sample size must be very low. Your numbers for J8s and 22 are both way out of whack in terms of absolute value, like by an order of magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it is low and I admit that.