My new hypothesis on playing 'junk' cards!

[elmitchbo]

in the past two days i've watched Gus H play in WSOP and Daniel N. do commentary for a celebrity tournament. of course we've all seen them play before, and Gus in particular has been discussed alot as of late. listening to Daniel do commentary was very interesting. he could obviously see all of the players cards, and anytime someone folded a hand like T7s or 75s he would say 'no! give me those cards... i'll raise with that in his position' or 'i could make a living on what she mucks'. i knew he played hands like that, but i still didn't understand the justification. later i heard Gus say 'any two cards can win... and when you're up against it.. it doesn't really matter whats in your hand.'(to paraphrase)

at this point i reference HOH's list of common hand vs. hand situations. i had some additional thoughts that led to the soon to be famous hypothesis [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]. if you're facing AA it makes very little difference what you have. you're best chance is another pocket pair, but it doesn't matter if it's QQ, 55, or 33. just two random cards is almost as good... you're a 4.5:1 dog with the PP, and a 5:1 with two lower cards. so basically Gus is right, if your up against it there's not much you can do, so yor hand doesn't really matter. in that underdog situation all hands are pretty equal, but they can't be equal in all situations, right? weel, they're not equal, but i think 'junk' hands might not be as bad as people think.

so here's the hypothesis... I think any 2 cards that are suited and less than a 4 card gap are as good as a medium or small PP. that's not great, but it is playable in many situations. if you think about it... both hands need alot of help on the flop, because they can't win unimproved. if they do hit the flop, then you have a pretty strong hand that is well disguised.

to expand the hypothesis... some marginal hands that are recommended as playable (KJs) aren't really much better than 'junk hands' (T7s). against a lower pair either hand is basically a coin flop. the only real difference is the increased chance that your up against a higher pair (AA vs. KJs or AA-JJ vs. T7s) or that you face two higher cards. we've aready established that if you're facing AA or KK there's not much you can do so any cards (T7s) will suffice. in the scenario of facing 2 higher cards the flop will be the key... it always is, even with AK or AQ. the drawdack of the lower cards only comes into play if the flop hits both of you or neither of you. if it hits neither that's ok, because I know I need help on the flop and I'll bail without it. 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. you can't win every hand, even with KK. i would guess those situations would happen no more often than trips being drawn out by a str8/flush, to continue the small PP comparison.

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. you have junk hands (that can win) almost all of the time. playing these hands won't be +ev all of the time (that's what AA and KK are for) but they may not have the -ev that i thought intuitively. how aggresivley do you play them? traditional wisdom would say play them cheaply in a multi way pot that can provide you the best odds. i don't disagree with that. i can also see the benefit of singling out a player heads up, which will build a big pot and narrow ther range of hands you need to beat. then you can be realtively sure he has something high and premium. that should let you know right away if the flop was good enough for you to take him. after all if he has AA any two cards are as good as the next.

i think the deception that this type of play creates is worth alot. from my reasoning (which might be wrong), you have two choices. play super tight and only get involved with premium hands, or play a huge range of hands like i described above. the drawback to only showing down good hands is the hit you take in profit when everyone figures out your raise only means one thing. the benefit to the super aggro is the huge payoff wen you do get the premium hand and every one has seen you cry wolf all day. i think the added profit from those hands, combined with the times your junk actually wins, and the times you take down the pot with nothing makes up for the times you pay to see the flop and bail. this as close as i've come to understanding the thinking behind the play of guys like Gus and Daniel.

flame away!!! i did no pokerstove simulations or anything like that.... these are just the thoughts i had last night. let me know where i went off the tracks.

[Mike]

Keep making posts like this and there goes the conference! Seriously, I agree with your point as long as you are not speaking strictly to a limit game.

I play limit and I like playing junk because it is fun and I am serious enough at my job. The line between winning and losing is very very fine at limit when you play junk hands. You have to be certain what your opponents will do, and exactly how far you can push. You also have to have the correct frequency of hands for the table at that moment.

One nice pot more than makes for seven junk limps, but it doesn't make up for seven turn folds because your opponents did not do what you wanted them to do and your hand didn't hit.

With NL or PL you have the leverage of limping and dragging large enough pots to offset your many limps when your hands hit. But then these games have their own set of perils, which I am not one to disuss with any real authority.

Good post again.

[deacsoft]

The next time you feel the need to write a post this long why not just call it an essay and submit it to Mr. Malmuth for the magazine. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Dan Mezick]

Doesnt any discussion of the super-aggro style have to start with commnetary on Doyle at or around page 420 of SUPER SYSTEM? He wrote the book on this stuff, why reinvent the wheel.

[Rococo]

You are ignoring stack depth, which is a critical factor. You will get eaten alive playing junk in a cash game if either you or most of your opponents are short stacked (e.g. less than 40x BB). The failure of some opponents to account for this factor is one of the reasons why some of the strong players on this site have experimented with buying in short in the 10/20 NL games, etc.

[memphis57]

Interesting thoughts. I've seen this kind of style played, both with success and without it - it might be called the "talented LAG" style. I think against typical "action players" it can be made to work well. One type you may have trouble with is the tricky TAG, one who mixes a typical TAG style with about 10% of the style you describe and bluffs even more, and isn't afraid to bluff all the way down to the river. He'll let you commit preflop and then raise - with two or three other raise-minded players this could see you getting capped a lot and spending way too much to see the flop with your 57s. Post-flop you'll usually be behind when he hits in TAG mode, and of the times he is in he will hit a greater percent than you, but his 10% junk and 20% bluff won't let you reliably determine when that is by his betting. But he'll bail when there are straights and flushes on the board, where you stand to make the most money. Too many players like that could eat this style alive.

True, there are still ways to beat him, but even with my meagre skill level I've been pretty successful holding my own against talented LAGs with this approach.

[Voltron87]

Junk hands aren't as far behind premium hands mathematically, except for AA and KK, but there are other weaknesses. 25s isn't that far behind AK, but when you are playing 25s it is hard to know where you are, whether you are ahead. With AK it is much easier. When you have AK with an A on board, you can be fairly sure you are ahead headsup. If you have 25, and the board is qj5... you have no clue. So junk hands are also harder to play, especially against good players who will be aggressive and shut you out.

That is why they are junk and not profitable.

[k_squared]

I agree. the difference between 'good' hands and 'bad' hands is simply that with 2-5s you won't play it to the river (or even on the turn) if you don't get a decent flop... but then you are actually going to be much further behind than 1:5 because you will be losing out on a lot of your winning hands by simply not playing them.

I think the style of play can be effective in given situations. I think it is by nature less workable in full ring games than 6 max, and less workable in 6 max than NL. 6 max at least gives you the advantage of knowing that fewer hands are out which decrease the chances of their being a quality hand. Position is also important when playing junk in so far as being in position can allow you to make up bets against your opponents by forcing them to miss bets when ahead and allowing you to get in extra raises when you are ahead.

I think in NL they become much more playable simply because you know have the ability to change the pot-odds so dramatically that you can out play your opponents much more effeictively. You can raise them off their middle pairs, or draws with little to nothing. In limit that is simply not the case.

-k_squared

[mshalen]

I don't understand why so many people are trying to apply your theory to limit games. The framework of the theory is NL MTT. In that context I do partially agree with you. There have been many times I have played "junk" and crushed opponents who are only playing big hands. The implied odds that you get when you do catch 2 pair, the 68 to make a straight or a flush makes these playable and very profitable. I would suggest that you revise your post slightly and submit it to the MTT forum.

[PairTheBoard]

elmitchbo: "so here's the hypothesis... I think any 2 cards that are suited and less than a 4 card gap are as good as a medium or small PP. that's not great, but it is playable in many situations. if you think about it... both hands need alot of help on the flop, because they can't win unimproved. if they do hit the flop, then you have a pretty strong hand that is well disguised.

to expand the hypothesis... some marginal hands that are recommended as playable (KJs) aren't really much better than 'junk hands' (T7s). against a lower pair either hand is basically a coin flop."

While you may have a point that such "junk" hands are more playable than many might think, I believe your "hypothesis" as stated is flawed. You are ignoring the power of Pocket Pairs from TT to 77. KJs plays much better against such pairs than T7s. Also, TT...77 can very well win unimproved. If you are playing 95s, 96s, 85s, 86s, etc. you can easily improve and Still Lose against such unimproved pocket pairs. If you have 96s against KJs and flop J,9,2 rainbow heads up, you can leak good money before deciding you're beat. Making the idiot end of straights and flushes can devastate you.

That's not to say these cards can't be played ala Brunson, Hanson, and others. But to say they are "just as good" as superior cards is a bad hypothesis.

PairTheBoard