A tough CP 2-7 hand
 

How should this hand be set:

KKQQJT9876522 no flushes

I'd love to hear player opinions and Gritter's magic.

Re: A tough CP 2-7 hand
 

KKT92 front
87652 middle
QQJ back

would be my guess- OK middle, somewhat strong back

Re: A tough CP 2-7 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
KKT92 front
87652 middle
QQJ back

would be my guess- OK middle, somewhat strong back

[/ QUOTE ]

Spike is correct. Expect to lose about 0.92-0.96 points. But playing QQ22 or a straight in back is a bit worse, about -1.18 to -1.20 points.

The point system I described in the October 2+2 magazine gives those two arrangements the same value, unfortunately, though it does steer you away from the straight:

KKT92 87652 QQJ: 2 + 14 + 10 = 26 points
QQ229 T8765 KKJ: 4 + 9 + 13 = 26 points
9TJQK 87652 KQ2: 7 + 14 + 2 = 23 points

Re: A tough CP 2-7 hand
 

I had guessed that

89TJQ Q7652 KK2: 7 + 5.5 + 12 = 24.5 points

might also be a strong candidate. Does that fall in between the two 26 point choices?

Speaking of points, I think your article lays out a very nice scheme for scoring hands. In looking at the points, it looked like you just took your raw numbers at 5% intervals. I know that there were a few different iterations of the computation, but even taking that into account, I was still surprised to see a couple of things, like the kickers with 88 and QQ. Was anything tricky going on there, or just rounding?

Re: A tough CP 2-7 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had guessed that

89TJQ Q7652 KK2: 7 + 5.5 + 12 = 24.5 points

might also be a strong candidate. Does that fall in between the two 26 point choices?


[/ QUOTE ]

89TJQ Q7652 KK2 comes in at around -1.42 points.

[ QUOTE ]

Speaking of points, I think your article lays out a very nice scheme for scoring hands. In looking at the points, it looked like you just took your raw numbers at 5% intervals. I know that there were a few different iterations of the computation, but even taking that into account, I was still surprised to see a couple of things, like the kickers with 88 and QQ. Was anything tricky going on there, or just rounding?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just rounding (and, heck, maybe I got it wrong when copying the hands from the original data set into the program that evaluated the heuristics)... I have wondered whether it makes sense to fudge the hands a bit one way or the other but haven't invested the time to investigate whether some minor shifts give better results.

The two exploitive strategies give slightly different hands for the 5% estimates, here is "strategy 3":

0.051687, QJT
0.106333, KQJ
0.151715, AQ3
0.200677, AK8
0.252720, AKQ
0.300212, pair of Eights Six kicker
0.350101, pair of Tens Four kicker
0.400430, pair of Jacks Seven kicker
0.452320, pair of Queens Three kicker
0.509109, pair of Queens King kicker
0.552476, pair of Kings Five kicker
0.601870, pair of Kings Jack kicker
0.676056, pair of Kings Ace kicker
0.706992, pair of Aces Six kicker
0.772863, pair of Aces Jack kicker
0.808908, pair of Aces Queen kicker
0.870549, pair of Aces King kicker
0.912963, trip Fours
0.951167, trip Sevens

and here is "strategy 2":

0.050091, K32
0.103207, KQJ
0.150283, AQ4
0.201712, AK9
0.250918, AKQ
0.300814, pair of Eights Three kicker
0.353629, pair of Nines Ace kicker
0.400147, pair of Jacks Three kicker
0.456235, pair of Jacks Ace kicker
0.500262, pair of Queens Jack kicker
0.551238, pair of Kings Three kicker
0.608689, pair of Kings Jack kicker
0.680976, pair of Kings Ace kicker
0.703292, pair of Aces Five kicker
0.754086, pair of Aces Ten kicker
0.812764, pair of Aces Queen kicker
0.873278, pair of Aces King kicker
0.901057, trip Threes
0.952361, trip Sevens

It looks like 88A was probably a mistake, 883 or 886 may be slightly better.