More Chinese with 2-7 in the middle

[quickfetus]

Some more HU Chinese hands with 2-7 in the middle. 2-4 Scoring System, no surrender. Sort of a continuation of an earlier post, I guess.

Hand #5
AQJJ988765532
Clubs: QJ9863
My play: JJQ95 76532 A88

Hand #6
ATT9875554432
Clubs: T9875
My play: 55544 98732 ATT

Hand #7: AKKJT97754433
Hearts: KT743
My play: KT743h 97543 AKJ

Hand #8: KJT8877644333
Spades: J7643
My play: 33344 KJT76 887

Okay, four hands should be enough for one post. Any and all input and suggestions appreciated [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Quickfetus

[quickfetus]

Bump and a fresh addition:

Hand #9

KQTT998887652 (no suits).
My play: 88899 Q7652 TTK

Any better ideas? Any close plays?

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
Bump and a fresh addition:

Hand #9

KQTT998887652 (no suits).
My play: 88899 Q7652 TTK

Any better ideas? Any close plays?

[/ QUOTE ]

The obvious alternative is 9988Q 87652 TTK.

I think this might be a hand where exploitive strategy comes into play. It seems likely that if your opponent knew which of these two options you preferred he could sometimes tailor his strategy to improve his chances, since there are a lot of crappy lows which still beat your Q7.

I dealt a few hands with the remaining cards:

Deal #1:

AKQQQJJJ76644: QQQ66 AK744 JJJ is the only reasonable choice (you lose 2 either way)
KKJTT86555432: 555TT 86432 KKJ seems strongest (you lose 2 with the full house in front or 4 with the 87652 play)
AAA9977433322: AAA99 77422 333 is pretty ugly (you lose 2) but I think it's better than AAA97 97432 332 (which you beat).

Deal #2:
KQJJT97554322: KQJT9 75432 J52 wins 2 vs. two pair but loses 2 to your full house. JJ22Q T9743 55K doesn't seem worth it.
AKKJ977665443: Loses 2 to you either way with KK774 96543 AJ6. KKAJ4 96543 776 gets scooped by your low hand. 77664 J9543 KKA beats your full house, though, and loses 2 to your low hand.
AAAQQJT864332: AAA33 T8642 QQJ scoops your full-house hand but wins only two against two pair. But, AAAT3 86432 QQJ scoops your 8 low and wins two against your full house.

Deal #3:
AQKJ766543322: Ugly, ugly hand. I tend to think 66J23 75432 AKQ is best. You win two no matter what.
AQJTT99877554: Another ugly one. JT987 QT974 55A gets scooped by your Q low, 77559 QJ984 TTA can an least avoid the scoop no matter which you play.
QQKKQJJ644332: AA33J QJ642 KK4 is pretty ugly but I can't beat your Q low so it loses 2 (but beats your 8 low for 2.)

Deal #4:
AAKQQJJ976532: QQJJ9 76532 AAK scoops your 8 low but only wins 2 against your full house.
AKT95s AJ542h 664: Wonderful high-only hand. AA55 in back with 66 in front leaves us with a K-high in the middle. I'm tempted to go with AKT95 flush AJ542 (non-flush) 664 which loses two to your 8 low and gets scooped by your full house.
KQJT877443332: 87432 for low leaves only a pair of 3s in back. Probably 3334Q JT842 77K? That loses only 2 to either of your hands.

From this very small and unscientific survey, it looks like the 8 low may get scooped more often. I would go with the full house. (Though deal #2 suggests your opponent might be able to exploit that in some cases, perhaps a mixed strategy is in order.)

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]

Hand #5
AQJJ988765532
Clubs: QJ9863
My play: JJQ95 76532 A88


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder about 8855Q 97632 JJA. Though going from #3 to a 976 in the middle is a big jump. I guess I can see more ways to win two with the 9-low but more ways to get get scooped as well.

I'd probably stick with 76532 in the middle and hope nobody comes up with a better 7.

[quickfetus]

Very interesting analysis of hand #9; I looked through it a fair bit. FWIW, your conclusions seem very logical to me. In the third hand of your deal #2, is the difference between aces full and trip aces in the back really that close to the difference between T86 and 864 in the middle? I assumed playing the boat would be the clear play.

Also: Does anything from the hands in the initial post jump out at you?

[Andrew Prock]

KQ9 97652 TT888

Not really that close.

- Andrew

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
KQ9 97652 TT888

Not really that close.

- Andrew

[/ QUOTE ]

I like it. It seems that with the 8s blocked, the 9 in the middle is just as good, and we're full in back.