Re: Quantifying the difference between JJ and TT?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm troubled by the fact that I play JJ so differently from the way I play its not-too-distant neighbor, TT.
For instance, on the first hand of a 33 SNG, if I pick up JJ from early position, I'll probably raise to around 8-10x BB. If I pick up TT, I'll probably just limp. One of these plays (or both) has got to be wrong -- I'm thinking it's the TT limp.
Granted, the odds of somebody having two overs on my TT are almost twice the odds of somebody having two overs on my JJ. (10:6, I believe).
Anybody care to explain how YOU distinguish JJ from TT?
J Chap!
[/ QUOTE ]
At level 1, with 10/15 blinds, raising 3-5x is pretty worthless. Raising JJ up to 90-100 ish is what I'd do, though 8-10x might be over the top. It gets you in a big pot out of position vs a hand that's likely quite good. Alternatively you win some pretty petty blinds. So a good sized raise (neither huge nor small) will strike the right balance IMO. I'd also experiment with limping JJ in EP, as some prefer it. TT I always limp.
To the OP's question....
The reason why JJ pwns TT is because of the J. With TT you have another broadway overcard to deal with, and AJ, KJ, etc type hands are an issue. With JJ you cut down severely on the number of playable hands that trouble you.
For the same reason, there's a huge gap from JJ to QQ, and a bigger gap from QQ to KK (as now only one overcard can be hand and one hand in the game puts you in trouble).
TT to 99 is less significant because hands with a T in it aren't as frequently played. Basically I'm saying that the difference in consecutive pairs increases as they get bigger. I treat TT and 99 very close to the same, not quite premiums. JJ is entering into monster-land, for the reasons above.
Thats my 2 cent'
Kings
|