Minor point, but does 23o play worse than 27o thus making it worse?

[benkahuna]

I can't imagine it's that important except in heads up or a very wild and crazy shorthanded no limit game (because I think to play absolute garbage you need high implied odds), but it seems to me that 23o probably plays worse than 27o. 23o may make some straights by the river, but who what disciplined player is there to see them enough to counteract the low card values?

All those 27o is the worse hand studies have been full table no foldem holdem simulations, as in everyone at the table sees their hand to the river with no betting strategy.

Dan Harrington says that 23o is the worst heads up, not 27o. And he's not talking about playing, he's talking about all in. I'm sure it plays badly as well.

I realize it's a minor point, but isn't that sort of nitpicky stuff what this forum is for?

In a related issue, it would make sense to get a different chart of hand rankings for playability, sort of a continuation of Phil Hellmuth's top ten.

27o is the worst statistical starting hand against a blind hand. In a heads up situation 27o against 23o, the 27o is favored 65%/35%. I would personally rather have 27o heads up against a blind hand because that higher card would seem to be more valuable. At a full table I would rather have 23, especially suited. Especially if an Ace flops with a straight draw cause if the straight hits I should make a lot of money off the guy holding an Ace.

[KidPokerX]

Interesting post. I'd like to see what others say about this, but wouldn't 23o (or any low connector for that matter) be more valuable than 72o in no-limit?
My reason for this would be that in no-limit hold'em the possibility of straightening up (usually using the A) would be more valuable than catching just a pair of 7's with the 72o.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
27o is the worst statistical starting hand against a blind hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's against 9 blind hands, but not against a single blind hand, at least if you believe Harrington. I'm partly challenging this assumption here.

Your point about an ace makes sense, but does the occurance of a str8 occur often enough to make up for its major playability issues that make it hard to see a river? I have my doubts. 83 is a sweet hands the times you hit a 33t board and the ten doesn't pair, but it happens pretty infrequently too. I need more convincing.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting post. I'd like to see what others say about this, but wouldn't 23o (or any low connector for that matter) be more valuable than 72o in no-limit?
My reason for this would be that in no-limit hold'em the possibility of straightening up (usually using the A) would be more valuable than catching just a pair of 7's with the 72o.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense, but I'd still be worried about the chance of hitting a not scary str8 draw or the low likelihood of flopping a str8 not being enough to make up for the difficulty a wise player would have taking a 23o beyond the flop. The implied odds are clearly better, but do the implied odds make up for the poor pot odds you'd have pf, flop, etc?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
All those 27o is the worse hand studies have been full table no foldem holdem simulations, as in everyone at the table sees their hand to the river with no betting strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that this is wrong. 27o is only considered worse than 23o for postflop strategic reasons, any NL tournament player worth their salt knows that 23o is the worst hand "hot and cold". The consensus is that straight draw possibilities are better than the high card strength because its very hard to ever be able to tell that "pair of sevens, deuce kicker" is any good, but a straight will generally be good.

[Xhad]

Here is the part you are missing: ANY piece of crap hand can make two pair, trips, or a full house. The value of individual hands hinges on what they can make other than those hands.

When you say 27o is better than 23o, you are essentially saying that being able to hit "pair of sevens, deuce kicker" after the flop is more valuable than being able to hit "tiny straight draw", which is generally false.

No one is saying 23o is a powerhouse, but being able to make a straight is better than being able to make a piece of crap one pair hand.

EDIT: One more thing, neither hand is playable, stop acting like the people saying that 23o is better than 27o are automatically implying that it is. This is an argument of "which piece of junk is worse". [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the part you are missing: ANY piece of crap hand can make two pair, trips, or a full house. The value of individual hands hinges on what they can make other than those hands.

When you say 27o is better than 23o, you are essentially saying that being able to hit "pair of sevens, deuce kicker" after the flop is more valuable than being able to hit "tiny straight draw", which is generally false.

No one is saying 23o is a powerhouse, but being able to make a straight is better than being able to make a piece of crap one pair hand.

EDIT: One more thing, neither hand is playable, stop acting like the people saying that 23o is better than 27o are automatically implying that it is. This is an argument of "which piece of junk is worse". [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think kickers matter, and a lot. And high card value still helps too. Do these considerations counteract uncertainty with a 72 hitting one pair or the possibility of hitting a str8 with 23? I really don't know. I could see it either way. 23 may make for easier decisions, but I'm not sure that's enough to make it a better hand. Easier decisions are obviously a bonus.

I'm a little confused by your edit. How could someone stating something not imply what was said (I guess you could state it was explicit so it wasn't implicit). I realize this is hair splitting and both hands are real POSs. But, being the occassionally pedantic fellow that I am and given I thought there could be a side effect of learning something, I felt it was worth exploring the issue. Whether the difference in strength between these hands has any real world consequences is highly questionable, I would agree.

As for any tournament player worth [their] salt would want a 23, from where does this idea originate? Is it just shooting for tight aggressive play and easy decisions as the most important focus (and you applied you applied this idea to this situation). Have you read something in this regard from a tournament poker theorist?

I get the sense (and maybe I'm mistaken) that people have been brainwashed to believe that 27o is the worst hand even though theoretical tests with 27o are far removed from real world situations. I'd be quite happy to be convinced that I'm wrong.

I don't see myself willingly playing 72o except in heads up, so if we want to go from theoretical to practical, I guess how useful 27o is would be dependent on one's style of heads up play.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
As for any tournament player worth [their] salt would want a 23, from where does this idea originate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misread my post. I said good tournament players know 27o is better to be all-in with than 23o, heads-up or otherwise. The point about tournament players who know what they're doing was in response to the following:

[ QUOTE ]
All those 27o is the worse hand studies have been full table no foldem holdem simulations, as in everyone at the table sees their hand to the river with no betting strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is completely false because 23o is, statistically, the worst hand, meaning that if you take all random hands and have them go all the way to the end 23o will fare worse than any other hand, regardless of how many players you have. Tournament (ESPECIALLY NL) players already know this because you get all-in on a regular basis and it's good to know what generally makes one all-in hand superior to another, because hands with no postflop betting will occur many times.

About the edit, it seemed to me that some of your earlier posts were asking, "Do you really want to try to flop a straight draw with 23o?" When the answer is, "Well, no, 23o sucks, but 27o is worse."

The ironic thing is that your thesis is that 27o is worst statistically, but better strategically, than 23o, when this is exactly backwards. 27o is a better hand statistically, in that it theoretically makes the best hand more often than 23o, but it's harder to play after the flop because it is less likely to make the nuts or anything especially strong. Most of those theoretical extra wins with 27o come when it flops a junk hand (PAIR OF SEVENS, NO KICKER is junk, ESPECIALLY in no-limit) that happens to beat your opponent's even worse junk, and in deep-stack situations like that the winner is usually whoever bluffs better.

Here's an example with different hands that should demonstrate the point. You are playing NL, in a tournament, and the player UTG has raised. He is not an especially wild raiser. Four people cold-call. Would you rather have:

8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

or

K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

KJo is, statistically, a better hand. In computer simulations against one opponent, or probably even many opponents, it's going to win more often. However, the fact remains that 89s is a far better hand to have here. The reason being that most of KJo's theoretical wins will come from top pair, decent kicker, and you won't know when those are good or not because you have to worry about whether raiser whiffed with overcards/has a lower pair, or if he has you dominated. 89s won't randomly beat the raiser with one pair as often, but it will more often make hands like straights and flushes that are so strong that you don't care what the opponent has.

HOWEVER, if for some reason you had to play one of them all-in (let's say you're the big blind and you have less than half a big blind left in your stack), then I want the KJo because postflop decisions don't matter anymore and I want pure math on my side. In fact, in this situation, A9o is better than 89s, despite the fact that A9o is crap if there's postflop betting. Do you see why?

27o vs. 23o is about the same situation, except both hands are junk and you can usually assume your opponent's hand is better than yours with or without a preflop raise.

EDIT: One last thing before I go to bed, have you read the Theory of Poker? A hand making decisions harder later is a liability because it means you will make more "mistakes" after the flop, which translates to less profit. This is an even bigger deal in no-limit where the bets can be exactly the size that puts the most pressure on you to make the "correct" play.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]


I think you misread my post. I said good tournament players know 27o is better to be all-in with than 23o, heads-up or otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

You win twoplustwo points by outwitting me with your fancy "hot and cold" lingo. :P I read, but didn't understand. Now I do.


[ QUOTE ]
The point about tournament players who know what they're doing was in response to the following:

[ QUOTE ]
All those 27o is the worse hand studies have been full table no foldem holdem simulations, as in everyone at the table sees their hand to the river with no betting strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is completely false because 23o is, statistically, the worst hand, meaning that if you take all random hands and have them go all the way to the end 23o will fare worse than any other hand, regardless of how many players you have. Tournament (ESPECIALLY NL) players already know this because you get all-in on a regular basis and it's good to know what generally makes one all-in hand superior to another, because hands with no postflop betting will occur many times.


I disagree. Check this link for 27o and how it fares all in pf against 9 others:

27 off in simulation


[ QUOTE ]
About the edit, it seemed to me that some of your earlier posts were asking, "Do you really want to try to flop a straight draw with 23o?" When the answer is, "Well, no, 23o sucks, but 27o is worse."

[/ QUOTE ]

I did ask in the context of playability of 23 which you stressed and I considered worth debate. I think which one is worse depends on what kind of implied odds you're getting. It seems to me that 23o is more likely to be the best draw and 27o more likely the best hand if it pairs. Relative stack sizes would be paramount here. I think I just assumed we were shorthanded since I said that before and I almost never play 27o or 23o otherwise (big blind, or trying to be deceptive on occasion are exceptions).


[ QUOTE ]
The ironic thing is that your thesis is that 27o is worst statistically, but better strategically, than 23o, when this is exactly backwards. 27o is a better hand statistically, in that it theoretically makes the best hand more often than 23o, but it's harder to play after the flop because it is less likely to make the nuts or anything especially strong. Most of those theoretical extra wins with 27o come when it flops a junk hand (PAIR OF SEVENS, NO KICKER is junk, ESPECIALLY in no-limit) that happens to beat your opponent's even worse junk, and in deep-stack situations like that the winner is usually whoever bluffs better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think 27o is better statistically (when not all in against 9 opponents) and similarly poor strategically. In my original post I was pretty clear that I considered this mostly a theoretical situation and for it not to be, you'd have to be playing heads up or in a crazy shorthanded game. Whether this is a tournament or a ring game and stacks relative to the blinds have not yet been established, btw. You threw those in there on your own. Not that I mind, but I think we should consider each of the situations. 27o and 23o aren't played in a vacuum. I guess to be fair and complete, we'd have to look at them in multiway and heads up as well as tournament versus ring game situations.


[ QUOTE ]
Here's an example with different hands that should demonstrate the point. You are playing NL, in a tournament, and the player UTG has raised. He is not an especially wild raiser. Four people cold-call. Would you rather have:

8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

or

K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

KJo is, statistically, a better hand. In computer simulations against one opponent, or probably even many opponents, it's going to win more often. However, the fact remains that 89s is a far better hand to have here. The reason being that most of KJo's theoretical wins will come from top pair, decent kicker, and you won't know when those are good or not because you have to worry about whether raiser whiffed with overcards/has a lower pair, or if he has you dominated. 89s won't randomly beat the raiser with one pair as often, but it will more often make hands like straights and flushes that are so strong that you don't care what the opponent has.

HOWEVER, if for some reason you had to play one of them all-in (let's say you're the big blind and you have less than half a big blind left in your stack), then I want the KJo because postflop decisions don't matter anymore and I want pure math on my side. In fact, in this situation, A9o is better than 89s, despite the fact that A9o is crap if there's postflop betting. Do you see why?

27o vs. 23o is about the same situation, except both hands are junk and you can usually assume your opponent's hand is better than yours with or without a preflop raise.

EDIT: One last thing before I go to bed, have you read the Theory of Poker? A hand making decisions harder later is a liability because it means you will make more "mistakes" after the flop, which translates to less profit. This is an even bigger deal in no-limit where the bets can be exactly the size that puts the most pressure on you to make the "correct" play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your situation is tailor made for a suited connector. I already assumed that we wouldn't be dealing in multihanded scenarios. Connected hands obviously play better against multiple opponents. Against a few opponents, I would always choose the 23. Otherwise, I would have low pot equity. I basically agree with you here and am well versed in these types of decisions despite how I probably came across (based on your response).

This discussion has taken on a serious bread and butter of starting hand evaluation turn.

You go for strength rather than suitedness and connectness heads up above. When I say heads up, I mean 2 people in the match, not just 2 people left with active hands. That would suggest to me you'd take 72o heads up over 23o--wait, only for an all in situation.

Interestingly, you find Dan Harrington using pot odds for an eventual win of a particular hand to determine its playability. Based on this criteria, 27o would be better. It does ignore playability issues and the difficulty of playing mediocre and drawing hands post flop, but I guess it works well enoughas a method. You have to find some way to make the difficult decisions and force yourself to play hands heads up against your normal playing instincts.

I have read TOP. I've read a number of other books that apply the concepts of TOP helping cement the ideas in my head. I conceded that tricky post flop decisions are a bad thing and a reason to dislike 72o relative to 23o. The only reason to dislike one hand versus another is profitability, of course.

I'm not actually seeing much disagreement here, except about 27o all in versus 9 opponents (at some number of opponents, it obviously stops being the worst hand and that number is between 8 and 2). We agree about the reasoning why 23 and why 27 are good or bad hands. We seem to have been vague about declaring conditions. And we seem to have some disagreement about the relative importance of different characteristics. You seem to believe the ability to make easier decisions post flop is outweighs having high card strength in 23o v. 27o. I'm not so sure. I think I expect a lot of difficult decisions post flop in heads up play though 23o is a little easier to throw away--both are quite easy to toss, of course.

It's kind of like deciding whether you'd like body wide cancer or full blow AIDS.

My main point in the post was to explore whether maybe 27o has a slightly worse reputation than it deserves (seems pretty clear that it does) and if maybe 23o has a slightly better reputation than it deserves. I don't believe anything definitive has been written on the subject.