In the beginning you discuss that you want to openfold 9753ds from the HJ if the table is tough. Would you openfold the following hands and/or fold them to 3-bets when the table is tough (if ever)?
So in general when discussing whether or not to open a hand and I refer to tough opponents and how much that ways into my decission to open the hand or not is pretty much always in situation where im OOP vs the specific opponents. I will treat your questions as such, furtheremore im assuming 100bb stacks;
1) Fold pre
2) open, call
3) fold pre
4) open in most scenarios when facing 2 tough opponents oop that are active 3 bettors I fold, call.
@ nextlevel,
I think both options are fine. In this instance im facing a rec player that seems to love his c bet so I think checking is good here. Facing a more deliberate opponent leading becomes more appealing.
Propokertools rates the former as a top 20% hand and the latter as a top 10% hand:
AJ98 has more equity than KQJ9, against tight ranges and against wider ranges:
Also KQJ9 with 3 hearts and a Q high suit will hit a flush less often because it has 3 hearts and its flushes will be dominated more often since it's the third highest flush.
KQJ9 blocks 23% of top 3% combos whereas AJ98 blocks 51% of all top 3% combos. So you will almost certainly face less 3-bets when you open AJ98 from UTG than you would with KQJ9 from UTG. In fact all 4 hands are from JNandez at 500 zoom - he folded the AJ98 - and he got 3-bet by the HJ when he raised the KQJ9 from UTG.
I fail to find just one measure by which the KQJ9 performs better than the AJ98, and yet both you and JNandez play the KQJ9 and not the AJ98.
@GT: the "one measure" is that KQJ9 makes better wraps and more and nuttier straights. I'm not saying that necessarily makes it a higher EV open, but a high rundown with a single gap at the bottom is conventionally a playable hand. (Personally I tend to open both these hands UTG at 6max.)
@GT: the "one measure" is that KQJ9 makes better wraps and more and nuttier straights.
I'm not sure if "nutty wraps and straights" are relevant enough to qualify as a relevant measure since it intentionally caps the handstrength at straights. It would make more sense to me to talk about handstrengths that are both at least a straight and also the nuts. That would make them truly "nutty".
For starters, AJ98 makes the nuts by the river more often than KQJ9, 8.54% vs 7.69%:
On the flop AJ98 has the nuts that is at least a straight more often than KQJ9, 3.23% vs 2.89%;
On the turn AJ98 has the nuts that is at least a straight more often than KQJ9, 7.26% vs 6.52%;
On the river finally AJ98 has the nuts that is at least a straight more often than KQJ9, 8.64% vs 7.70%:
Lastly AJ98 has more equity against 2222 than KQJ9 because KQJ9 blocks its own outs:
Yea I think playability on multiple streets oop counts for a lot vs tough opponents and feel like the kqj9 is a bit easier to play than the Aj98. However I wouldnt feel too sure about it either when comparing these 2 hands. For me that is the argument, but I feel like i might be wrong there. The playability of the AJ98 is definitly not poor, compared to, for example, weak kings.
What is certain is that both hands should be ok opens on most tables anyways.
Thanks for pointing this out.
So you base these plays on experience. I was wondering if you had done simulations or database work, but that seems to be not the case. Thanks for answering.
Good conversation! Intuitively I also see KQJ9 being nicer hand to open from UTG than AJ98, but it's quite tough to argue against the points GT made. I guess there might be some mental leak seeing certain types of hands too pretty and easy to play and vice versa.
Also, I think the PF blocking effect could be a bit underrated concept. Specially when there is 4-5 players still left to act, it makes quite significant difference if you block aces or not for how often you face calls and 3-bets.
Loading 11 Comments...
In the beginning you discuss that you want to openfold 9753ds from the HJ if the table is tough. Would you openfold the following hands and/or fold them to 3-bets when the table is tough (if ever)?
Ah9hJd8c from UTG
KdQhJh9h from UTG
AsJdJh7d from the HJ
Ad4d8h7h from the HJ
at 17 minutes approx you limp called SB vs BB. flop ( T 5 4 s ) Is there any reason to not lead this flop?
So in general when discussing whether or not to open a hand and I refer to tough opponents and how much that ways into my decission to open the hand or not is pretty much always in situation where im OOP vs the specific opponents. I will treat your questions as such, furtheremore im assuming 100bb stacks;
1) Fold pre
2) open, call
3) fold pre
4) open in most scenarios when facing 2 tough opponents oop that are active 3 bettors I fold, call.
@ nextlevel,
I think both options are fine. In this instance im facing a rec player that seems to love his c bet so I think checking is good here. Facing a more deliberate opponent leading becomes more appealing.
Why do you prefer KdQhJh9h over Ah9hJd8c?
Propokertools rates the former as a top 20% hand and the latter as a top 10% hand:
AJ98 has more equity than KQJ9, against tight ranges and against wider ranges:
Also KQJ9 with 3 hearts and a Q high suit will hit a flush less often because it has 3 hearts and its flushes will be dominated more often since it's the third highest flush.
KQJ9 blocks 23% of top 3% combos whereas AJ98 blocks 51% of all top 3% combos. So you will almost certainly face less 3-bets when you open AJ98 from UTG than you would with KQJ9 from UTG. In fact all 4 hands are from JNandez at 500 zoom - he folded the AJ98 - and he got 3-bet by the HJ when he raised the KQJ9 from UTG.
I fail to find just one measure by which the KQJ9 performs better than the AJ98, and yet both you and JNandez play the KQJ9 and not the AJ98.
@GT: the "one measure" is that KQJ9 makes better wraps and more and nuttier straights. I'm not saying that necessarily makes it a higher EV open, but a high rundown with a single gap at the bottom is conventionally a playable hand. (Personally I tend to open both these hands UTG at 6max.)
I'm not sure if "nutty wraps and straights" are relevant enough to qualify as a relevant measure since it intentionally caps the handstrength at straights. It would make more sense to me to talk about handstrengths that are both at least a straight and also the nuts. That would make them truly "nutty".
For starters, AJ98 makes the nuts by the river more often than KQJ9, 8.54% vs 7.69%:
On the flop AJ98 has the nuts that is at least a straight more often than KQJ9, 3.23% vs 2.89%;
On the turn AJ98 has the nuts that is at least a straight more often than KQJ9, 7.26% vs 6.52%;
On the river finally AJ98 has the nuts that is at least a straight more often than KQJ9, 8.64% vs 7.70%:
Lastly AJ98 has more equity against 2222 than KQJ9 because KQJ9 blocks its own outs:
Yea I think playability on multiple streets oop counts for a lot vs tough opponents and feel like the kqj9 is a bit easier to play than the Aj98. However I wouldnt feel too sure about it either when comparing these 2 hands. For me that is the argument, but I feel like i might be wrong there. The playability of the AJ98 is definitly not poor, compared to, for example, weak kings.
What is certain is that both hands should be ok opens on most tables anyways.
Thanks for pointing this out.
So you base these plays on experience. I was wondering if you had done simulations or database work, but that seems to be not the case. Thanks for answering.
Good conversation! Intuitively I also see KQJ9 being nicer hand to open from UTG than AJ98, but it's quite tough to argue against the points GT made. I guess there might be some mental leak seeing certain types of hands too pretty and easy to play and vice versa.
Also, I think the PF blocking effect could be a bit underrated concept. Specially when there is 4-5 players still left to act, it makes quite significant difference if you block aces or not for how often you face calls and 3-bets.
@41.40. Wouldn't you consider opening TT64$ss on the button?
Best coach on RIO imo
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.