234x worth a call?

[UnsungHero]

Is limping it with 234x a good play in a loose passive O8 game? I think a 234 with even a suited K is worth a call, looking to flop an A for nut low draw or the suited A for a scoop potential.

Thoughts?

[Luckless57]

I like this hand in an unraised pot in late position with a limited amount of people calling preflop. When there are quite a few people in the pot preflop you know most of the aces are out, and an ace is what your looking for in the flop to continue with this hand most of the time.

[Buzz]

Unsung - There is quite a wide gap between the worst A2XX hand and the best.
A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].......1363
A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].......2787
A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].......3183

On the other hand, there is not a wide gap between the worst 234X hand and the best 234X hand.
2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].......1322
2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].......1786.

(I believe A278-rainbow is the worst starting hand in the group of A2XX hands and I believe 2348-rainbow is the worst starting hand in the group of 234X hands. That’s just my opinion and it’s based largely on nine-handed simulation results).

If I ran those identical simulations again, I would not expect the results to be exactly the same. It’s like flipping a coin 10000 times. You probably will not get exactly 5000 heads and exactly 5000 tails. You might get 4916 heads one time and 5276 heads the next - or you might get 4845 heads the next time.

The numbers shown in the right hand column above are win tallies for nine-handed no-fold-’em simulations with scoops counted as 1, wins for three quarters of the pot counted as 0.75, wins for half the pot counted as 0.5, wins for a quarter of the pot counted as 0.25, etc. This is for 10000 runs, so that if you just stick a decimal point in the middle of the four digit number shown, you’ll get the percentage of wins equivalent to scoops.

There is no sharp dividing line between what makes a hand playable or non-playable. At some tables and against some opponents, you might do better by playing some or all of the family of 234X hands while at other tables or against other opponents you might do better by playing none of them.

But that pure truth is probably not very helpful to you.

If you’re a relative beginner, you might avoid 234X-rainbow hands, where X is anything but an ace or a five. I think 2346n, 234Qn, and 234Kn are the best of the hands thus excluded for beginners (2346n means 2346-rainbow). If you have a bit of experience, you might add 2346n, 234Qn and 234Kn to your playable list. And maybe 2344n. 2344n does not simulate horribly (1590), but keep in mind that you can get in trouble playing hands with small pairs if you’re not careful and sensitive to your opponents. (Small pairs tend to make losing full houses when the board pairs and they match an unpaired board card that is lower than the board pair).

There’s a guy, a nice guy, who sometimes plays in our friendly Friday night game. He’s a smart guy in other ways, an educated man - but when it comes to playing cards, he simply doesn’t get it. I think the suited 234X hands are all playable, but maybe not if you’re a half-wit or if you just “don’t get it.”

[ QUOTE ]
I think a 234 with even a suited K is worth a call, looking to flop an A for nut low draw or the suited A for a scoop potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

234Ks? Heck, it weighs in at 1562, which makes it very playable, in my humble opinion. (But not on the bubble in a tournament, of course).

Buzz

[chaos]

234x hands are not bad for limping when you have position.

For rainbow hands I'll play 234x when x is an A, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. If the hand is suited or double suited I'd add in hands where x is the K or Q provided they are the suited card. For example I think 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] is playable but 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] is not.

Buzz,
I think 2349 is even worse than 2348. I haven't run any sims but logically I think it should be. Some 2348 high wins will be using the 4 and 8 to make a straight. 2349 does not have this capability. Also the 8 provides a small degree of double low-counterfeit protection which the 9 does not. These situations are rare but I think they would more than outweigh the fact that the 9 is one pip higher, slightly increasing the quality of any high you make.

[PokerProdigy]

I usually play the 234 also, but it maybe the type of hand thats only worth playing in late position when there's at least a few limpers. And maybe only if you're able to see the flop for one bet. By the way, I am fairly new to O/8 so my advice could be totally wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Jim Morgan]

In loose passive games I will play all 234x hands for 1 bet. I rarely call a raise with it. If I do, it is when the raiser is a loon whose raise says nothing about his or her hand. In the game I frequent most often, raises are usually quality hands and often have AA.

In games with lots of raising, I will limp from late position.

In tight games I will raise with 2345 or 2346 if I am in late position and there are few or no callers.

I have seen people say things like "Lots of callers mean that the aces are out". I think that is an excellent guide if one applies it to TIGHT games and TIGHT players. If I were somehow playing in a table against 9 clones of myself I certainly could fold 2345 if there were 3 limpers. However, in the B&M games I play, 6 limpers merely means that 6 pacemakers are still operational. Assuming these folks have aces for their calls is insane.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think 2349 is even worse than 2348. I haven't run any sims but logically I think it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chaos - I disagree.

My main reason for thinking 2349n is a slightly better starting hand than 2348n is you have a slightly better chance to make the nuts for low.

For example, if the board is A-5-K-K, on the turn:
• 21/44 river cards make you the nut low with 2349n.
• 20/44 river cards make you the nut low with 2348n.

Simlarly , if the board is A-4-K-K, on the turn:
• 12/44 river cards make the nut low for 2349n.
• 11/44 river cards make the nut low for 2348n.
It’s true that another 6/44 cards make the seventh-nut-low for 2348n. But do you want to play the seventh-nut-low at a typical full table?

Would you trade a card worth one out to the nut-low for a card worth six outs to the seventh-nut-low in a typical full game?

• Of relatively minor importance is the fact that nines make slightly better high hands than eights. (For example, if the board is 2-2-8-9-K, although deuces full of nines is not a particularly good full house to hold here, it does beat deuces full of eights).

[ QUOTE ]
Some 2348 high wins will be using the 4 and 8 to make a straight. 2349 does not have this capability.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but the straight is virtually worthless.
• First, any straight made using a four and an eight is not the nut straight. (The board would have to be 5-6-7-X-Y for the 4-8 combo to make a straight, and in that event, the 8-9 combo would make a better straight.
• Second, when three cards of the board are 5-6-7-rainbow, the other two cards are favored by better than six to one to enable a higher hand than an eight-high straight.
• Third, holding 2348n, you’ll only make the nut-low and also an eight-high straight about one time out of a thousand - and when you do, your eight high straight will still not be favored to win for high. (The board would have to be A-5-6-7-X).

[ QUOTE ]
Also the 8 provides a small degree of double low-counterfeit protection which the 9 does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But I don’t think that’s worth as much as having an extra out to make low.

[ QUOTE ]
These situations are rare but I think they would more than outweigh the fact that the 9 is one pip higher, slightly increasing the quality of any high you make.

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) I agree that the slight increase in the quality of any high you make going from eight to nine is not worth much. I mentioned this increase above, but largely discounted it.

(2) But a second nut eight high straight is pure crapola and can be dangerous unless you also have the nut low. (3) And seventh nut low is certainly not bettable, and hardly even playable.

In my humble opinion, all of these three factors taken together are not worth as much as the extra out for nut-low provided by having an eight still in the pack rather than in your hand.

Whatever the cause, 2349n did better than 2348n in my sims. 2349n also is better than 2348n in Bill Boston’s book of sims. (Boston’s suited and double suited series for 234X also follow this trend).

I’ll run the series again, the next time I get to run sims, just to double check, but it honestly clearly seems to me that 2349n is a better starting hand than 2348n. (I have them both pegged as marginally playable).

Buzz

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming these folks have aces for their calls is insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jim - I wouldn't put it exactly that way, but it certainly is true that in a typical game all the callers don't have aces. Sometimes none of them has an ace.

That's not just my opinion. That's God's own truth.

Buzz

[Buzz]

Chaos - I re-ran the sims for 2348 and 2349.

hand....high......low......scoop...total
2348n..157.77.....978.27....235....1371
2349n..120.25....1022.29....278....1421

2348s..175.21.....987.93....345....1508
2349s..155.67....1039.85....337....1532

Same basic result as before.

Buzz

[chaos]

I forgot to think about that 2349 gives you one more low out. I agree with all of your reasoning.

Thanks for the detailed analysis and running the sims, Buzz.