34 off suite or 95 suited

[Soh]

15-30 game

You don't know any of the players. You post $10 in small blind. One limper call from middle postion. You decided to call. Do you rather want to have 34 off suite or 95 suited?

Thank you

Soh

[Ed Miller]

Is this a trick question?

[Soh]

No.

I posted this hand becuase I though the answer is ovbious, but one good player responded different, so I ws wondering what other people think about this.

[astroglide]

95s, it isn't close, yawn.

[MichaelD]

Soh,

I think this is a very interesting question.

Since I am going to attempt to make logical arguments for one hand over the other, I do feel it necessary to clarify in advance that as far as I am concerned...

BOTH HANDS SUCK!!!!!

With this being clearly said, on to my thoughts...

While I feel arguments can be made for both hands, personally, I would prefer the 34 off suit for a variety of different reasons.

When looking at these two (or any) hands, I think it is important to have an idea of the best hand you can hope to make with your starting two cards. With the 95 suited, the obvious answer would be the flush. With the 34 off suit, the obvious answer would be the straight.

If I make a straight with the 34 off suit, there is a good chance it will be a wheel. Since a wheel contains an Ace, there is a very good possibility that I will make a few bets off someone holding an Ace or possibly multiple bets off someone holding Ax suited and making two pair. Many weak players like to play any Ace.

Many weak players (players who open limp generally have a tendency to be weak from my experience) like to limp with small pairs such as 22,33,44,55, or 66 - they limp because they like to see the flop for cheap. If I make my straight and they hit their set, the payoff is potentially very good. There are very few trap situations with 34 off suit - usually you flop all of it or none of it - hardly ever will you flop top pair - for the most part - hardly ever will you not be really sure where you are at in the hand - this specific analysis being relative of course.

In other words..... From my perspective, I am less likely to make a hand that is second best and lose multiple bets with the 34 off suit than I am with the 95 suited.

I cannot emphasize enough the enormous importance I personally place on doing as much as I can to avoid hands that have a greater potential of making a hand that is second best.

It is much easier to flop top pair with 95 suited and lose.

It is much easier to make a straight with 95 suited and lose to someone playing 910 suited.

It is much easier to make a flush with 95 suited and lose multiple bets to someone who makes a bigger flush.

If there were multiple players - more than 4 besides myself (5 or more total), then I would probably take the 95 suited because although I still may make second best, the pots odds are more likely to be there for me to draw to the hand I hope to make.

I really do not feel the over card advantage that 95 suited has over 34 off suit makes up for the potential trap situations that come with it - the board is likely to contain a card bigger than a 9 or a 3 so I throw the over card advantage right out the window and look past it as I feel the other factors contribute more to the long term +/- ev of one hand over the other.

For me, the bottom line is they both absolutely suck - but if I do get fortunate and make my wheel - I am more likely to get multiples bets out of the hand as many players will play any A, and most play any A suited. Coupled with the fact that there are so few ways I can get trapped with the hand, and so few ways I can make a second best hand, I give the nod to the not so obvious 34 off suit.

A sorta similar example would be a choice between having 22 or K10 - when I say similar, I mean similar in the type of questions I ask myself when playing a cheesy hand - I understand the over card value is much greater here - and with position the K10 will likely make more money long run -I ONLY use this as an example of the type of questions I ask myself - I think it just paints a clearer picture of the importance of the questions - regardless of the outcome.

1. Which hand is easier to play after the flop?

2. Which hand am I likely to get more bets out of if I do hit?

3. Which hand am I likely to make second best with and get punished?

4. Which hand am I less likely to get trapped with?

5. Which hand am I likely to have a better idea of where I am at in the hand allowing me to save bets or make more bets? Not calling with 22 past the flop if you do not hit vs getting paid off by someone with an over pair when you do hit the 22?

Hopefully, this helps explain my thought process. While I am not saying I can give any statistical percentages or odds of which hand plays better, I do prefer the 34 off because if I hit I likely get paid off, if I do not hit, it likely does not cost me any more at all, and I am a lot less likely to hit the hand and make a second best hand.

All in all, when analyzing a situation such as this, I think the most important thing by far is to evaluate the specific thought process in order to make better overall poker decisions. Since it is blatantly obvious the hands being discussed are not going to make anyone any money long term and both are almost surely guaranteed to be long-term losers, the most valuable benefit from this situation comes from...........
How we think about which hands to play and how to play them, and to continually re-define and re-evaluate our thought process relative to our own game, the opponents we are competing against, and the applicable ensuing results.

Regardless of the minute difference between both of these garbage hands, they still possess inherent value by helping us to ask questions we can better apply to other poker situations. In my opinion, this is the value this situation offers and why I have spent so much time on two hands that do not seem worth even the slightest glance.

Just some thoughts...

Michael D.

PS - I am sure most of you have guessed by now that I was the player who Soh referred in his response to Majorkong that did not think the answer was soh obvious.

[Kevin J]

Mike-

To be honest, I didn't read your entire essay, but I could quickly tell we very much disagree on this. I don't have time right now to get into long dissertations or debates, so I'll just point out the one thing that LEAPED out and is very easy to dispute...

It is much easier to flop top pair with 95 suited and lose.

This statement is CLEARLY wrong! And probably not insignificant especially since you're discussing a heads-up situation.

[MichaelD]

Kevin,

I absolutely mean this with the most sincerest and all due respect, however I find it somewhat troubling that you, or anyone else for that matter would actually respond to a specific post, mine in this particular situation, without having read it in its entirety. With this said, I do understand that my posts are lengthy, likely far too lengthy in many cases, but at the very least, and the only thing I will say in my defense, whether they are right or wrong, I do put a lot of time, thought, and sincerity in my efforts.

By your own admission, I am guessing you read Soh's and my post in a somewhat more hasty fashion than normal and I just wanted to clarify that the situation was not heads up. From my interpretation of Soh's post, the situation described was three handed unless the big blind folds his hand pre-flop for no raise - highly unlikely after posting a big blind.

In regards to my comment, I did not clearly state my intention when I stated "it is easier to flop top pair with 95 suited and lose" You are correct from an odds perspective and I did not write what I meant thus it came out different than I intended.

What I meant was that I feel that it is more likely that one can be facing a 9 with a greater kicker when having 95 suited and a flop with 9 high on it, than flopping a 4 for top pair and be faced with a hand with a 4 with a better kicker in it. I feel there are more hands with a 9 in them that an average opponent is likely to play than there are with a 4 in them an opponent is likely to play. To name a few... I would think 89, 910, 9J, 9Q, K9, A9, and possibly even 79, not to mention all of these hands suited. I feel these 14 hands (7 not suited and 7 suited) are likely candidates for an average opponent to see the flop with.

As far as hands with a 4 in them, the ones I can think of are A4, and 45, with 46 possibly being in there as well. Anwy, this is all speculation but I see less playable hands with a 4.

Since I do feel there are likely more playable hands with a 9 in them than a 4 in them, my thoughts are that when you flop a 9 for top pair, I feel there is a greater chance, given the likely holding of your opponents, you are beat. However, I understand I still may be way off on this.

I understand you are very busy, and have not yet had a chance to read my all too lengthy post, but my main point is at the end of the post and I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it. I know for a fact that you think as much or likely more about the game than I do and I would be very interested in your take on my interpretation on the real value a situation such as this truly offers. As I stated in much more detail in my initial response, I do not think the true value is in the percentages of one hand vs the other.

Sorry if I jumped on you in the beginning about not reading my 3000 word essay in its entirety before responding. It was just that my true point was at the end and I am guessing you did not get that far and I was hoping to hear your thoughts based on that.

Regardless, as I anticipated, I can see already that I am definitely going to be in the minority regarding my thoughts on this. [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

Just some thoughts...

Michael D.

[astroglide]

i'm responding to your second post, and i only read a few sentences of it AND only a few sentences of the first.

they're really long, incorrect responses to a really simple question. 95s makes more money.

[DanZ]

Please see my resonse to Mike's post. I know you mean no offense, but you do word things very harshly, and seem to operate on a very narrow set of assumptions - that is, that your opponents cannot play skillfully at all, and play too loose. You also seem to imply that others are lacking for not coming up with the same "obvious" answer you did.

Rarely do the card values or, God forbid, simulation results, tell you the whole story or the correct play.

Especially in hold 'em, where the hand reading can get very precise, the pots often are fairly small, and the drawout factor is often tiny, there are often many answers to a strategic question. Which of these various answers depend on the playing style, skill, and psychology of the players involved, especially in heads up and shorthanded pots.

Obviously, these factors are much less important in multiway pots, or in huge pots, but they still have their influence.

To address a more general topic, if all of these things are so "obvious" and simple, then why are people able to win at these games? These plays would eventually become simple and obvious to anyone who put in any effort to learn the game, and we'd all play most of the situations exactly the same.

For example, I know on the surface my play of the 3 kings looks terrible, but it simply was not against a tight player who viewed me the same. I can't say I played it the best way, but I thought it was interesting because it was a very counterintuitive strategy that was not wrong by much (a fraction of a bet) if it was wrong, and may have been correct by a huge proportion (like I had almost no chance of getting action if I was ahead, but was getting raised if I was behind and must call it down).

This was a hand where the right play is very dependent on the opponent and the game situation, a lot more than the "hand values". Many, if not all of the hands posted here, have this characteristic. This is what makes them interesting, as figuring out the "hand values" in hold 'em is not so tough much of the time. There are exceptions to all of this, but please keep in mind that most of us can come up with the "obvious answers", so posting them with no explanation is not really adding anything to the discussion.

[DanZ]

Mike,

I am a huge fan of your posts and get a lot out of them.

I think there's something about this thread, and most threads on the forum, that is missing.

"how well do you play, how well do they play, and what do they think of you?" To paraphrase Mason's essays.

In this erxample, I would much rather have the 95s against weak players. I will be allowed to win with a pair more often, and I will be allowed to get away from a pair cheaply. THe will also not read the flush possibilities on board as quickly as a better player, and are less likely to be suited themselves becuase they overvalue medium to small pocket pairs and offsuit medium to high cards.

Among other things, ahving the 9 against someoen who will call you down with unimproved pocket 4s on a 9 high board is a nice bonus.

However, against tougher players, I might do better with the tiny cards, because my straights will be more deceptive than a flush, I am less likely outkicked,
and if I bet or raise with a bike draw, they might fold middle pair fearing I have an ace.

They will also be more willling to fold in general, so having a pair of nines or fives (versus 3's or 4's) to show down will not be as consequential.

However, if you yourself cannot lay down a hand, but your opponents are skillful, then I agree completely with your assertion to favor the 34o over the 95s.

Here's a simple example of this idea - I have J8s in the SB in a half bet SB game. A player I view as not very good has open limped from early middle position - about the last position at the table where I view this as reasonable, though still later than I would do it.

I played the hand, and the flop was J23 or something, rainbow. I bet, the BB folds, this player raises the flop, and I fold without hesitation. He shows me his offsuit jack with the better kicker to impress me with how well and tight he plays.

If one cannot make laydowns like this (safely), yet your opponents won't bluff or raise with worse hands so often that you profit by calling them down, then having a kickerless middle card to pair is often a detriment. This could be the case because you just can't make these laydowns or reads, or your opponent(s) plays very well and, at least sometimes, deceptively.