JJ's shouldnt be tier A 1 hand and why..............

[shutupndeal]

JJ's shouldnt be tier A 1 hand and this all started because I was reading how QKs (a fav hand) is a positional hand at best that shouldnt be played from early position.
So I matched a pair of J's against QKs with 1 other player who I gave A-5s (clubs) (I cannot account for position remember this is on the cardplayer calculator)

Heres the results against 3,4 and 5 players......

(Wow, I see I cant add anything to the thread so Ill have to give you the plain #'s.I was going to give you pix)

With 3 players playing, the J's in 1st seat, the QKs in 2nd and the A-5s in 3rd these were my numbers...
34.8 (Jd-Js)
34.0 (Qh-Kh)
31.2 (Ac-5c)

w 4 players adding a pair of 7d-7s the QK now takes the winning %

28.2 JJ's
29.0 QKs
27.3 A-5s
15.5 7d-7s

with 5 players adding a connecter (8h-9d) which is an 8h so it takes away from a str poss and a flush card from the QKs,
of course it affects the JJ's somewhat but Im not a mathematician I just thought it was half fair, maybe I should have tried a maniac with a 3-4o? lol

24.4 JJ's
25.6 QK
14.0 7's
27.1% A-5c
08.9 8h-9d
NOTICE the QK beats the J's everytime except the initial hand with 3 players and take real note of the A-5 suited as the best hand now. I find this hard to imagine given we have two big cards with the Q-K against the 5 with the Ace, I always tend to think it evens things out cuz you have that 2nd big card to hit but.........whatever I cant argue with the calculator, I tried it wont answer me!

Anyway I am not by ANY MEANS knocking David's hand rankings I just think the QKs either belongs in group1-tier1 or however you slice it/name it OR then that the J's arent quite as strong as we originally thought and now maybe after all these years of playing David will concede and make the J's a tier2-Group2 hand?

Remember when the Groups were.......... err well "grouped" I dont know how David envisiond this BUT he was writing about ring game play mostly in the early works so I kind of took it to heart that he didnt mean the hands should play head to head. I think this comparison is fair in that it takes into account the type of hands we face day in and day out playing ring games too. So how about it, agree disagree....I am ready for flames and input! lol
Oh and BTW.my fav card in the deck is the Jd! : )

[7ontheline]

No offense, but your post reveals a very fundamental lack of understanding of poker. When you run a simulation where EVERY overcard is out there and other people are suited with straight potential then the equity of JJ is obviously minimized - this is not news. It is also not a reason to downgrade JJ. Do you think that all those hands are going to stay in preflop? Or see it all the way to the river? Properly played, JJ is a big hand. Yes, AA or KK is much better, but JJ is going to be one of your biggest winners overall.

[smartalecc5]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense, but your post reveals a very fundamental lack of understanding of poker. When you run a simulation where EVERY overcard is out there and other people are suited with straight potential then the equity of JJ is obviously minimized - this is not news. It is also not a reason to downgrade JJ. Do you think that all those hands are going to stay in preflop? Or see it all the way to the river? Properly played, JJ is a big hand. Yes, AA or KK is much better, but JJ is going to be one of your biggest winners overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post.

[pzhon]

Your examples were stacked against JJ because you always included precisely one ace, one king, and one queen among the opponents' hands. That will not always happen.

To see whether AKo is stronger than 22, you don't put them together in the same hand, where 22 is a slight favorite. You see how well they play against other hands, where AKo greatly outperforms 22, e.g., AKo is a big favorite over J9o, which is a favorite over 22. If you want to compare JJ with KQs, here are some comparisons.

Equity against 55:
JJ: 80.5%
KQs: 49.5%

Equity against KTo:
JJ: 71.3%
KQs: 74.6%

Equity against A6s:
JJ: 68.5%
KQs: 43.0%

Equity against AKo:
JJ: 56.9%
KQs: 29.6%

Equity against KK:
JJ: 18.5%
KQs: 13.9%

Equity against "any face card":
JJ: 70.3%
KQs: 61.4%

Equity against a random hand:
JJ: 77.5%
KQs: 63.4%

Equity against ATs, 88, and T9o:
JJ: 49.9%
KQs: 32.3%

Equity against T4o, 32s, and 96o:
JJ: 58.6%
KQs: 41.2%

Equity against AA, TT, and 65s:
JJ: 16.8%
KQs: 13.5%


It looks like JJ wins more in almost every situation, but the above figures are just hot-and-cold. Is it different in practice? No. JJ wins 0.86 BB/hand in limit, according to PokerRoom's stats. KQs wins 0.39 BB/hand.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
JJ wins 0.86 BB/hand in limit, according to PokerRoom's stats. KQs wins 0.39 BB/hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thread over.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
JJ wins 0.86 BB/hand in limit, according to PokerRoom's stats. KQs wins 0.39 BB/hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thread over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you have your location before I had mine?

[Emperor]

KQs shouldn't be played from early position? WTH???

Not only am I playing any 2 suited Broadway cards from EP, but I am raising KQo and AJo UTG AND my VPIP is ONLY 14%

Is JJ and TT going to lose a lot more than AA, yup. They are still +EV though

[BottlesOf]

I think so.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

JJ is a great hand, but a tough one to play. It has great EV, much more so than QK.

[poker-penguin]

My top most profitable poker tracker hands:

All numbers BB per hand

QQ - 2.78
AA - 2.54
JJ - 2.38

There's 11 other hands between the top 3 and KQs - some of the other pairs, a few suited aces, AKo, and K7s (I was baffled by this one too, but I've flopped big hands on steal raises and been paid off several times and haven't been caught with a loser).

KQs - 0.65

Blah blah sample size blah blah.