|
|
#1
11-01-2005, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Question for King Yao (and anyone else who can answer)
I'm reading Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker and on page 185 you talk about "High suited one-gappers (AQs, KJs)."
It says: "The gap between the cards hurts the drawing aspect of these hands." With one-gappers like T8 and 97 I would agree. But I would contend AQs is a BETTER drawing hand than AKs and KJs is a BETTER drawing hand than KQs. In Texas Hold'em AQs makes the same nut flush as AKs so that's a tie. However AKs can only make two straights (AKQJT & A2345). AQs is slightly better in that it can make three straights (AKQJT, A2345 & QJT98). That AQs is a one-gapper seems irrelevant. AKs, AQs, AJs, ATs all have the same A-high straight potential...they all need to hit three exact cards. No question AKs has better high-card and TPTK strength, but isn't it incorrect to say AKs is a "better drawing hand"? 
|
|
#2
11-01-2005, 10:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question for King Yao (and anyone else who can answer)
[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker and on page 185 you talk about "High suited one-gappers (AQs, KJs)." It says: "The gap between the cards hurts the drawing aspect of these hands." With one-gappers like T8 and 97 I would agree. But I would contend AQs is a BETTER drawing hand than AKs and KJs is a BETTER drawing hand than KQs. In Texas Hold'em AQs makes the same nut flush as AKs so that's a tie. However AKs can only make two straights (AKQJT & A2345). AQs is slightly better in that it can make three straights (AKQJT, A2345 & QJT98). That AQs is a one-gapper seems irrelevant. AKs, AQs, AJs, ATs all have the same A-high straight potential...they all need to hit three exact cards. No question AKs has better high-card and TPTK strength, but isn't it incorrect to say AKs is a "better drawing hand"? [/ QUOTE ] You're correct. If you consider AQs versus KQs or KJs versus QJs, you can tell me which ones are better for drawing. I've only read part of this book (in the process of reading it), but I suspect if you read and understood the book that you'd be able to know AQs is a better drawing hand than AKs.
|
|
#3
11-01-2005, 10:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question for King Yao (and anyone else who can answer)
I agree with your point about AKs vs AQs.
The section on "High suited one-gappers (AQs, KJs)" comes right after the section on "High suited connectors (KQs, QJs)". In my mind as I was writing it, I was thinking of the comparison between AQs vs KQs and KJs vs QJs. I should have made that clearer. And I will for the next printing. Thanks.
|
|
#4
11-02-2005, 06:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question for King Yao (and anyone else who can answer)
Hi Chucky,
AKs is a better drawing hand if you consider its overall ability to improve when behind versus AQs. If you only consider straights and flushes, then AQs is a better drawing hand. However, any flop with a K (20 percent) means you have one less overcard. AKs almost always has overcard outs in addition to possible backdoor flush and/or straight outs.
|
|
#5
11-02-2005, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question for King Yao (and anyone else who can answer)
interesting subject... has only dawned on my recently that AKs is an awful hand for completing a straight. only one good way to do it (i've overlooked A-5 straight).
was wondering??? what are the odds of AK being completed to Ace high straight?? how does that compare to odds of completing any straight with 87 for example (i.e can complete straight 8 different ways i believe, although only six ways to use both 87) got busted the other night on opponents hitting alot of straights. should i watch the board really careful for straight potential. especially watch for patterns where connectors would complete. or do people find completed straights are all over the map???
|
|
#6
11-02-2005, 12:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question for King Yao (and anyone else who can answer)
[ QUOTE ]
With one-gappers like T8 and 97 I would agree. But I would contend AQs is a BETTER drawing hand than AKs and KJs is a BETTER drawing hand than KQs. [/ QUOTE ] Are we talking about drawing to the winning hand, along with the most profitably played winning hand? Or just to drawing to the actual straights (which occur how often, again?) You might want to redefine "drawing hand" to accomodate all winning draws, not just nut straight draws. Count some pot sizes while you're at it.
|
|
#7
11-02-2005, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question for King Yao (and anyone else who can answer)
Easy E, agreed... have to define drawing better. because if you have AK, aren't you looking to "draw" an ace or king too?
|
|
#9
11-03-2005, 12:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question for King Yao (and anyone else who can answer)
[ QUOTE ]
sorry, but highcard strength of AK FAR outweighs the fact AQ can make 1 more straight. [/ QUOTE ] No question...but to say AK is a better drawing hand (ie. straights and flushes) than AQ is incorrent (though the difference is very marginal.
|
|
#10
11-03-2005, 12:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question for King Yao (and anyone else who can answer)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] With one-gappers like T8 and 97 I would agree. But I would contend AQs is a BETTER drawing hand than AKs and KJs is a BETTER drawing hand than KQs. [/ QUOTE ] Are we talking about drawing to the winning hand, along with the most profitably played winning hand? Or just to drawing to the actual straights (which occur how often, again?) You might want to redefine "drawing hand" to accomodate all winning draws, not just nut straight draws. Count some pot sizes while you're at it. [/ QUOTE ] When I think of "drawing hands" I take them to mean drawing to a straight or a flush, not drawing to top pair.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
