KQJ10

[Wintermute]

Yeop, that occurred to me--here's my dilemma though... half the hands I played weren't recorded, because they were "observed" by my machine at home (from a different skin) while I played at school. Yes, I realize I am a degenerate for playing poker while at school. Since the hands are recorded first in observed mode, the HH's aren't saved. I thought this was weird, since I transferred all the HH's from my school machine to home, but the HH's still are not overwritten on the hands observed. I guess PTO developers assumed you wouldn't be so stupid as to observe yourself playing.

Also, I considered taking the hands I actually do have and exporting them from old database, importing to new database, but it occurred to me that by keeping the hands seperate, I can track improvement in my play more easily. It also works as a motivational tool to playing well--right now, I'm trying to keep my win rate above 12.5 BB/100 hands, compared to 9 BB/100 from the previous 60k hands. I'm 11k hands in and meeting that goal so far, but I suspect I'm just off to a hot 2-week start, based on other indications.

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
...can track improvement in my play more easily.

[/ QUOTE ]
The filter tab makes it easy to compare different date ranges.

[Wintermute]

Ah, on the tab all the way over to the right.

I am a dumbass, still learning PT softwre. Thanks for the tip

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the tip

[/ QUOTE ]
No prob, there's quite alot to go through.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
So, what I'm getting around to here, is that KQJT rainbow still isn't a loser in my book, based on these 4 hands. I say that because I personally do not strongly consider suitedness before the flop with the exception of Ace suited. the betability of flushes smaller than A-high is low in PLO8, unless they are the nut flush with A or A&K on board. IMHO, the strength of KQJT is when the flop comes Axx with the xx being two of K,Q,J,T,and 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

KQJT single suited is probably EV+, double suited it should certainly be. Rainbow its still trash.

Its betability and value comes from when it hits two pair or a straight wrap -- the flush then serves as redraw potential if the other flush is not there, or as blocker cards to someone elses flush. Having a Qxx flushdraw on a Axx board for 2nd nut is nice, but if that's all you had its fairly weak.

[Buzz]

Wintermute - Allow me to take back my suggestion that your data base was flawed.

Instead it seems very impressive.

I’m not being sarcastic.

Thanks for the info. (Looks like if you follow Bremen's suggestions your data base might be even more useful to you).

[ QUOTE ]
So, what I'm getting around to here, is that KQJT rainbow still isn't a loser in my book, based on these 4 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in my book, based on 10000 hands (simulated). (And also based on some incidental calculations and reasoning).

[ QUOTE ]
I personally do not strongly consider suitedness before the flop with the exception of Ace suited. Now, what I mean by that is not that I'm too stupid to recognize the importance of having suited options in your hand, but the betability of flushes smaller than A-high is low in PLO8, unless they are the nut flush with A or A&K on board. Those are rare events.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you have written above. Yet suited hands, even baby suited hands, do average a higher win rate and profit than non-suited hands. You maybe can't push them, but I think you can take suitedness into account when you consider the playability of a starting hand.

The other thing is - in a limit game like 5/10, you often can bet the second nut (or maybe even lower) flush. In my humble opinion it just depends. For example, say you're on the button holding TJQKs with a flushed and straighted but non-paired board and it gets checked to you, I think you should often bet the king-high or queen-high flush. Someone could be patiently hoping for a check-raise with the nut flush, but probably not, and even if they are, it's no big deal. (More likely someone with the nut flush, or even king high flush would bet it, looking for a chaser with a lower flush or worse). Under similar conditions in a pot limit game, it would be scary (for me, at least) to bet the second nut flush.

I'm not advising anyone to bet a non-nut flush in a limit game, but sometimes I will, depending.

[ QUOTE ]
Also contributing strength to my argument are the results for the 3-suited and flush KQJT data from above, which is strong despite the fact that the flush aspect of the starting hand was less likely to factor in significantly than in single/double-suited KQJT's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And that's a reason why I think simulations are useful. But even in 10000 tries, you don't generally get exactly the same result running the same simulation twice in a row, or sometimes even within one or two per cent of the same result.

Buzz

[BBB]

Hi, my first post here in the Omaha forum.

I did some calculations, and here are my numbers (I think they're correct):

With KQJT, you'll flop:

KKx, QQx, JJx, or TTx (including boats and quads) - 3.19% of the time.

KQx, KJx, KTx, QJx, QTx, or JTx (exluding boats and repeats) - 11.86% of the time.

Q98, J98, or T98 - 0.83% of the time.

All these flops give you either the nut straight, top set, or top two pair I believe, a total of ~16% of the time, while putting no more than one low card on the board. But much of that time you'll be vulnerable to flushes.

If my numbers are correct, I think this is too low of a percentage to make this hand profitable when it's unsuited in all but the best of circumstances (maybe on the button after about 6 limpers).

If the K is suited, then the number would go up to somewhere around 25% I think, if all flops with two of that suit are included in the calculation (although many of those flops would yield lows or low draws). I think this would definitely make the hand more valuable and playable.

[Buzz]

Hi BBB - Interesting. You got around 16%. I got around 25%. I don't think your numbers are incorrect - and I don't think mine are either.

I could do this again, using more stringent requirements (like not drawing to a straight with two cards to a flush on the flop unless you also had two pair) and I'd get a different total.

For example, folding to a flop of T9X, AKX, AQX, AJX, and ATX (see chart below) would reduce my total by 1755 and put it more in line with your own 16%. (2560/17296 = ~15%). For me it's a judgement call, certainly not cut in stone - and actually would vary depending on how I perceived my opponents to be playing, the implied pot odds I thought I'd be getting, and how I was feeling myself.

For T-J-Q-K-rainbow, I would like:
• flops where you flop a full house or quads,
• flops where you flop two pairs (and thus also a straight draw),
• flops where you flop a straight (and possibly a draw to a full house),
• flops where you flop a set (and possibly also a straight draw),
• some additional straight draws.

I think those amount to about 25% of all possible flops when you hold TJQKn. (4375/17296 = about 25%)

The great majority of these playable flops, 3819, or almost 90% of them, are draws. Some of these draws might win unimproved, or might take the pot with a second round bet, but for the most part, at least in a loose game, you probably need to improve, and then you can make your draw and sometimes still get beaten by a better hand.

How did I get those numbers 3819 and 4375? I made a chart and then tallied the numbers in the chart.

Here’s my chart for TJQKn:

34.....AKQ not all same suit..4*3*3-2
34.....AKJ not all same suit..4*3*3-2
34.....AKT not all same suit..4*3*3-2
34.....AQJ (not all same suit)
34.....AQT (not all same suit)
34.....AJT (not all same suit)
1......KKK.......
9......KKQ.......3*3
9......KQQ.......
9......KKJ.......
9......KJJ.......
9......KKT.......
9......KTT .......
45.....K98 (not all same suit)..3*4*4-3
1......QQQ.......
9......QQJ.......
9......QJJ.......
9......QQT.......
9......QTT .......
45.....Q98 (not all same suit)
1......JJJ.......
9......JJT.......
9......JTT .......
45.....J98 (not all same suit)
1......TTT .......
45.....T98 (not all same suit)
60.....987 (not all same suit)
556...sub total, made hands on flop
............
108.....JJX.......
108.....TTX.......
272.....JTX (not all same suit)
315.....T9X not same suit.7*3*4*4-7*3
360.....AKX not same suit.8*4*3*4-8*3
360.....AQX (not all same suit)
360.....AJX (not all same suit)
360.....ATX (not all same suit)
108.....KKX.......3*36
272.....KQX not same suit.8*3*3*4-8*2
272.....KJX (not all same suit)
272.....KTX (not all same suit)
108.....QQX.......
272.....QJX (not all same suit)
272.....QTX (not all same suit)
3819...sub total drawing hands on flop

4375...total flopped made+drawing hands

Clearly some of those draws are better than others.

No guarantees I didn't omit something or make a math mistake somewhere. Lots of places to go wrong.

Maybe playing some of those flops is stretching it. (Or maybe someone would generally play a flop of
9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], a flop belonging to a group (98X) which I intentionally left off my list. However, no sense in fooling with the list any more because it's variable anyhow, depending on the odds you're getting and your sense of what cards your opponents are playing.

Enough.

Buzz

[BBB]

Wow, nice list Buzz. (Actually, when I started lurking in the Omaha forum, I went back and read a lot of your old posts, and it helped me out a lot I think.) I agree our numbers are pretty comparable. I imagine it's the inclusion of flops like ATx that might make this hand marginally playable in Omaha High, but pretty much totally unplayable in O8.

As you said, we both got 15-16% when you removed certain flops from your count. You appropriately excluded suited flops, which I didn't, but I think you may have counted a few flops more than once (for example QQJ falls under QQJ, QJx, and QQx), although this is probably an insignificant number.

But in any case, I think we agree that this hand is a loser, there are simply not enough good flops.

[Buzz]

BBB - Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
....I think you may have counted a few flops more than once....

[/ QUOTE ]

I might have, although I tried not to count anything twice (or more).

[ QUOTE ]
(for example QQJ falls under QQJ, QJx, and QQx),

[/ QUOTE ]

It's harder for me to explain what I did than it was to do it, and doing a list like that is a bitch.

In coming up with a sub total for QJX, I didn't count Q or J as X, since those were already elsewhere (up above) on the list. In other words, the 272 total for QJX excludes Q, J, and some other ranks that were included elsewhere.

Similarly, J was excluded from X in the 108 sub-total for QQX. That one must be have come from 3*4*9. Looks like I counted nine ranks there, and jacks would have been one of the excluded ranks.

I could have made what I did clearer, but I hadn't intended to post the list when I originally wrote it. It was more or less for my own benefit. Then when you stated how you got 16%, I decided to share. So I moved a column and replaced the tabs with dots, etc. to make it more postable, but I didn't give any explanations. Since I posted the list, I should have explained it better. But then I was thinking it's a tentative and variable list anyhow, depending somewhat on how much money is expected to be in the pot and some other variables.

At any rate, I don't think I counted anything twice, but I might have. What I mean is I made a conscious effort not to count anything twice, but I might have missed something.

Buzz