[Buzz]

[ 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