My new hypothesis on playing 'junk' cards!

[memphis57]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why so many people are trying to apply your theory to limit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I thought he was talking about real poker. Yeah, it'll probably work in that kiddo game. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[2ndGoat]

<<so... if you hold/face a super premium hand you're in good shape/trouble. those hands are dealt with equal frequency to every one, but they are rare.>>

When you're playing tight you are much more likely to fold when someone has a top hand...

<<it is certainly possible for the flop to hit me but hit the 2 higher cards a little bit harder. those cases will be rare, and i might still be able to sniff out the danger. when i don't i just take my lumps.>>

There's the rub. I'm going going to be on the side of hitting "slightly harder" very rarely when I've got trash- basically I need to flop 2 pair o/b (which is about 28:1, right?), in order to help better than his top pair/overpair, which doesn't happen every time you hit the flop hard, either. Of course, a hallmark of these "smart lags" is getting away from a loser, and clearly doing so with abnormally high precision would go a long way.

Don't get me wrong, I still see the merits of this strategy. It's just that this post is written convincingly enough that one might think "smart lag" play is all roses.

Harrington mentions in his book that you'll make money the easiest when you play the style most abnormal for you- if you're playing at a different gear (between tag and lag, basically) than the table puts you on, you figure to get either loose calls or tight folds. I think that's what the "real answer" is to the equation- get good at peddling nuts, and get good at peddling trash, and pull the appropriate one out of your hat when the time comes.

That is, unless you're freakishly adept at hand reading, then go head and just play any 2.

2nd

[avalanche201]

I think you are making a mistake here. These types of plays are made by players that have a hold on the game that very few do. They are able to recognize the perfect situation to employ, and how to play even when they catch low pair. This is a style that works for no limit as you can make huge bluffs. But only in places that you can pull off huge bluffs, thus higher limits or tournament with big money on the line. These are so highley skilled that they can even get some of the best on tilt. Such as Hansen in the first poker superstars, as the other players viewed him as lucky. I wouldent recomend it if you like money, but feel free to try it out. It may seem like it makes sense in 10c rooms on the internet, when it costs you 5 bucks each time in a casino you might think differently.

[KingDan]

In a very deep stacked game, I believe certain players can play any two cards... assuming they are much better postflop and can throw away their crappy top pair on dangerous boards.

[pzhon]

KJs is much, much stronger than T7s. While it is true that they are both in horrible shape against AA, and about even against 22, KJs wins a lot more against QQ or 88 or AQ or Q2 or JT.

With deep enough stacks, low pocket pairs are very profitable for set value. If you hit a set, you have a concealed, powerful hand, and can win a lot off of big hands. If you miss, you might still be ahead, but only against a very weak hand that would not put in a lot of money anyway without a big draw, so you don't lose much if you let yourself get bluffed off a low pair.

A hand like T8s might win about the same amout as 88 against AA, but it much more rarely outflops AA. It more frequently flops a draw that makes it worth continuing, but does not allow T8 to bet or raise for value.

If you flop a draw with KJs and call a bet, you might have the best hand even when you miss your draw. That happens much less frequently with T7s. Also, a flush draw plus overcards is much stronger than a flush draw an undercards.

[rob0506]

Seems to me that this applies to any game (though it is more dangerous in limit). For instance, 22 has a slight advantage over AK heads up, but the AK will make FAR more money. The reason is that you can aggressivley bet the AK, but the 22 you have to play carefully unless you want to go home early. I think these hands are rated more on the money they make than on their chances of winning a pot. I'm a low limit newbie, so I'll certainly yield to better poker minds on this one. Am I way off base here?

[Ace_Ren]

From my understanding (a bit of a newb here too), you are indeed correct rob0506. A hand like K/Qs is rated above A/Xo in just about any rating scale, yet the A/Xo will win more than 50% of the time against K/Q. However, A/Xo is a dominated hand that will typically lose a lot while winning very little. Not going to explain that here, since it's assumed that this is already known.

The thought of playing any two suited 3-gap or 2-gap is an interesting idea because it's almost the exactly opposite of a dominated hand. Typically, you are going to fold with these on the flop for a very small loss (assuming you are not in maniac mode, which can be profitable). Yet, when you do hit, it's usually very well disguised (especially the straights or 2 pair) and can win a lot of money.

Yet there is still a problem. In some cases your straights will fall to bigger straights and in a lot of cases your flushes will fall to bigger flushes if there is a lot of bets going in. Even with bottom 2 pair, you are susceptible to the guy with top pair or an overpair hitting a better 2 pair (or trips) on the turn or river (this is still a good situation for you overall). Yet, this situation does not come up often enough to appear to be a profitable one.

The reason why guys like Gus H. and Dan N. win money is that they can read people, exactly like every other top pro. They have a pretty good idea of when their bottom pair is good and when their two pair is bad. Without that skill, playing in this fashion is a sure way to lose money over the long haul.

The advantage to the system is that you are getting into more pots and if you’re better at reading than your opponents you could win a lot of money with the odds against you. And of course, the other obvious advantage is that you become harder to read for a boost to the EV of every hand that would normally be played for a profit.

[elmitchbo]

thanks for the replies folks. some interesting thoughts.

first... i play almost exclusively in NL tournaments, so thats where i intended to apply the theory.

second... i agree that reading your opponent would be hugely beneficial. for that reason i think this strategy would be more useful in live action than online. i don't get the chance to play live very often, but i hope that's going to change soon.

i didn't really have a strict definition of how hard the flop needed to hit for the 'junk' to be playable. i guess i was thinking two pair o/b in most scenarios. i saw in one of the posts that the odds of flopping two pair o/b are 28:1. i hadn't seen that figure before, but i assume that's correct. those are thin odds, but i think even then the idea is still workable. you won't ever see 28:1 pot odds before the flop, but i don't think you need to. when the hands do hit they'll pay off well, and the times you take down a pot unchallenged will also off set some of the costs of playing. even if you just break even or come in slightly behind on thses hands i believe playing them is justified just for the deception factor. if it helps to maximize the profits of your truly strong holdings then it's +ev overall, even if those particular hands are show a negative return. if you lost a few BB's by playing 'junk' it wouldn't matter as long as it convinced one additional person to call down a big raise with an inferior holding everytime you did pick up a monster hand. right?

i saw one interesting post that said a small pocket pair against AA will flop a winner more than 'junk', even though they are equally likely to win by the river.... which means you'll have to stay in with the junk after the flop for it to work out. i think that's ok as long as you flop a pretty strong draw.

as draws go... i saw some posts that were concerned with losing to higher straights or flushes even when you did hit your hand. if you plug a straight with a 2 gapper it would be tough for someone to beat you unless they were playing equally spaced hands. i'm sure it would happen, but not often enough for it to be a huge problem. losing to another flush would be less likely. i've seen many people here advocate playing your flush, no matter how low, as though it's the only one in play. if you're laying down a flush out of fear of a higher flush, then when are you going to call down?

[2ndGoat]

<<I saw in one of the posts that the odds of flopping two pair o/b are 28:1.>>

Don't take that for gospel, it's just a vague memory my brain is carrying around. In fact i think I'll go look it up now... Ciaffone says so, in Middle Limit Holdem Poker. I thought that's where I saw it. Good enough for me.

<<when the hands do hit they'll pay off well, and the times you take down a pot unchallenged will also off set some of the costs of playing.>>

Remember there's no magic to this.. if they're going to pay off your bottom 2 with tptk, they're also going to "pay off" your garbage with tptk too. Goes back to reading people, but this is on the level beyond determining their holing, it's determining what they think you've got. However, in the worst case, if you're truly playing random suited nonsense, and betting it when it misses just the same as when it hits, they won't be able to put you on anything because they have virtually no signal input, so you won't really be able to increase their calling frequency when you hit, or reduce it when you miss.

I hypothesize if you want to try this out, you might want to first pick one orbit out of 5 to play "stupid" (picked with some modicum of randomness) so that you're generally playing opposite of what people have seen from you lately. Now your random garbage will tend to look harmless when it hits, and will tend to look dangerous when it misses. Actually, I think I am going to play a couple $50 NLHE tournaments on stars today to try this out- just big enough that people attempt to read hands and can be outplayed, but cheap enough that I won't be too upset over making a 100% incorrect read for all my chips. I remember a top pro saying that when he got started, he would have one day a week which was "play anything day." And I believe he was talking about LIMIT holdem. Don't think he claimed to win money doing it, but said it made him a much better player years down the road because of all the sticky situations he had encountered. So even if I can't manage this insanity profitably, I may learn something form it regardless.

2nd

[Poker_God]

I will say that i some what agree with the orignal poster but i will say that as it is hard to tell if you are behind and could easialy be pushed out its vise versa with good hands..... too many people are blinded with great cards and think they are much stronger than they actually are and are harder to fold for some while junk hands can easialy be folded if they hit low