Q-9s -- My personal seven-deuce

[Mattafuga]

I was reviewing my stats in Poker Tracker, and I discovered that my least profitable poker hand is Q-9s of all things.

This concerned me, so I went on to Poker Academy, and played out about 120 hands in all positions with Q-9s. The advice Poker Academy gave me was to basically always play the hand, regardless of position to only 1 bet. If its 2 bets cold to you, 100% fold, but if only 1 bet 87% call and 13% raise.

I question this, as I think Q-9s should never be played in EP, rarely in MP, and sometimes not even in LP.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject.

[Harv72b]

With the exception of obvious things like the top 10 hands, which hands you play & from where should always be dictated by two things:

-The overall table conditions. Standard games call for "standard" hand selection, like you see in charts everywhere. Loose/passive games you can play more multiway hands, especially suited ones, from everywhere. Loose/aggressive games you have to tighten up your standards in most cases. Very tight games you can raise with a hand like Q9s every so often & expect to take the blinds or suck out on a better hand often enough to make it worthwhile.

-Your perceived postflop skill vs. that of your opponents. If you have reason to believe that you can outplay your opponents postflop, then you can obviously get away with playing more borderline hands preflop. This is especially true if your opponents are predictably bad, versus just plain bad.

I do not think that Q9s is a standard play from EP or even MP on most tables.

[ThomasPHoolery]

Warnings before you read my post:

If anyone tries to quote a preflop chart at me, I'm gonna cut you.
I'm a bit on the LAG side for these boards (23/13/2.3 type) at 2/4-5/10, so take this with a grain of salt.

On to the post:
120 data points with a given hand is nothing. Sample size blah blah, we don't need to cover this-- it could be a losing hand because of 3 or 4 bad match ups in there. That being said, putting in $ with it 100% of the time for 1 bet is probably a mistake. It really, really, really depends on the type of table you are playing at that determines when and how you should be opening Q9s. There are some tables where it is absolutely correct to limp it under the gun. If I'm averaging 4+ players to a hand with a bunch of passive nits, you bet I'm coming in with it. Some tables, I'm folding it in MP2 (though, these instances are probably rare).

What's more important though, and we've seen this with some recent hands, notably a Q10s hand is HOW YOU PLAY HANDS LIKE THIS POSTFLOP. Understanding when and how to play a hand like Q9s for top pair value is what can make them profitable. It's very hard to determine why you're losing money with this hand, absent posting specific hands.

First thought though when seeing something like this in you PT database should not simply be to look at preflop situations, it's to look at how you play them post flop.

[SixForty]

[ QUOTE ]
Warnings before you read my post:

-snip-

First thought though when seeing something like this in you PT database should not simply be to look at preflop situations, it's to look at how you play them post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said on all points!

[Chipspin]

When I first started studying the game, I noticed exactly that. My least profitable (or most negative...) hands were Q9, QT, K9, and KT. And I think this was mostly because I was playing them in all spots w/out giving enough thought to position.

Playing a hand like K9 or Q9 in early or middle position is absolute suicide in most of my games. People will try to tell you that if you're an excellent post-flop player, you can get away with playing these hands, but if that's true, well then I just don't know any excellent post-flop players.

Try to avoid bad situations altogether by not playing these trash hands except when stealing.

[Hobbs.]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm a bit on the LAG side for these boards (23/13/2.3 type) at 2/4-5/10, so take this with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]
was going to call you a nit, but then realized I'm only running a 22/16/2.4 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Yo, I bought season 1 of entourage last night and watched the whole thing. It effing ruled.

[ThomasPHoolery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm a bit on the LAG side for these boards (23/13/2.3 type) at 2/4-5/10, so take this with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]
was going to call you a nit, but then realized I'm only running a 22/16/2.4 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Yo, I bought season 1 of entourage last night and watched the whole thing. It effing ruled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nit.

Dinner Tuesday (next week)?

[Hobbs.]

[ QUOTE ]
Dinner Tuesday (next week)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I could as long as we don't drink. I've got a ton of work to do tomorrow day and night [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
People will try to tell you that if you're an excellent post-flop player, you can get away with playing these hands, but if that's true, well then I just don't know any excellent post-flop players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am far from an excellent postflop player, but in my last 51k 5/10 full hands I'm break-even (okay, minus $4) with Q9s. That's still only 153 instances, but I think it does show that it's a playable hand under the right circumstances and with a slight bit of postflop skill.

My VPIP with it is 45.10, PFR 18.30, with a 16.34 winning percentage. I have no idea about numbers from different positions and I'm too tired & lazy to figure out how to get that in PT. I will say that it's a standard fold for me from EP, except under specific table conditions that I mentioned above. Even then, I'll usually only play it if I'm bringing it in for a raise & hoping to just take the blinds uncontested.