UTG standards...with warm legs...

[sharpie]

[ QUOTE ]
Folding any of these hands in any game that doesnt have a sick rake structure is pissing away money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I believe the tweener hands such as K9s and A9 are profitable in some games, and unprofitable in others. In a vacuum I'd say always opening A9o or K9s UTG in every game is slightly -EV, although I don't have enough hands in PT to back this up. If it is -EV in a vacuum, whether the EV lost is made up for by the laggier image it portrays is debatable.

Not trying to be a nit, I'm just wondering if I'm wrong and am too tight UTG. Do you think hands like A9o are profitable in a vacuum, or do you think the "shania" makes it profitable?

[yourface]

I don't think any of us have enough of a sample size to know for sure. well, maybe sethy does [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

fwiw I don't think it really matters whether your UTG cutoff is A9o vs ATo, A7s vs A8s, K9s vs KTs, etc. saying that it's pissing away money seems like an overstatement since these are such marginal hands in this position that it can't be very + or - EV in either direction.

[Oink]

Where is the fun in online debating if you dont get to overstate your opinions..? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Anyways. I dont mind folding A9o, KJo and K9s at a lot of tables. I think folding 66 on most tables is bad. I would much rather play 55 than KJo

I have no idea how much Shania affects the EV. I also think it should be mentioned that a lot of sites has contributed payout methods of rb and/or bonus and/or vip points which should make the tweeners more playable.

Some results from 500k DB. Far from significant.

44-77: 162 trials, 0.09. With 44 a looser.

A6s-A9s: 112 trials 0.06 with A7s and A6s being a looser

ATo-A8o: 243 trials 0.20 all winners

KJs-K8s: 118 trials (0.02) all close to EV neutral

KQo-KTo: 224 trials 0.22 with KTo loosing

QJs-Q9s: 78 trials 0.31 with QJs being the looser

JTs-J9s, T9s-T8s, 98s, 87s: 150 trials 0.15 with T8s, 98s and 87s all loosing slightly.

Obviously a small sample size but as long as I am winning I am playing them. Oh, and I am really bad at adjusting to table conditions.

[secretprankster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Folding any of these hands in any game that doesnt have a sick rake structure is pissing away money.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is and its not up for debate. If you cant extract value from those hands UTG you either suck at poker, pay too much rake or have bad seat/table selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this is true. There are hundreds of great tables where opening a hand like 55 UTG is clearly a suboptimal play. I probably fold it as a default on most tables - usually 66 is my UTG cutoff for opening.

[secretprankster]

[ QUOTE ]
I would much rather play 55 than KJo

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be hard to find people to agree with this statement. KJ is countless times easier to play and has almost got to have a higher BB/hand from UTG. Not near PT right now.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Folding any of these hands in any game that doesnt have a sick rake structure is pissing away money.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is and its not up for debate. If you cant extract value from those hands UTG you either suck at poker, pay too much rake or have bad seat/table selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this is true. There are hundreds of great tables where opening a hand like 55 UTG is clearly a suboptimal play. I probably fold it as a default on most tables - usually 66 is my UTG cutoff for opening.

[/ QUOTE ]

On a serious note.

What empirical evidence do you have to back up this statement? I am guessing none. Your line of reasoning is dangerous. You think its difficult to play OOP against a bunch of coldcallers so it must be -EV right?

The truth is as yourface pointed out. We dont know! We just dont. You dont and I dont. Now I was of course overstating my opinions but from a scientific point of view its not particular clever to claim that " There are hundreds of great tables where opening a hand like 55 UTG is clearly a suboptimal play." without any evidence at all. And then continuing on with stating that 66 is good enough to open...

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would much rather play 55 than KJo

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be hard to find people to agree with this statement. KJ is countless times easier to play and has almost got to have a higher BB/hand from UTG. Not near PT right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stoxtrader. But what does he know...

[sharpie]

Does stoxy play KJo UTG? What about KTo in the HJ?

IIRC King Yao advocates usually folding KTo in the HJ, and possibly KJo UTG.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
Does stoxy play KJo UTG? What about KTo in the HJ?

IIRC King Yao advocates usually folding KTo in the HJ, and possibly KJo UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most of his vids he whines about KJo UTG and yet he opens with it fairly often with the words "I think I have a postflop edge". He always mucks KTo in the HJ in the vids I have seen.

[pegboy]

OK guys, got the shorts on and life is cooling down for the peg...in the peg.

The hands I posted were from my newfound, arguably useless, list of heads-up starters. They list as follows according to strength against the deck heads-up.

1. AJ - 63.47%
2. KQs - 63.43
3. 66 - 63.27

4. A9s - 62.75
5. AT - 62.72
6. KJs - 62.50

7. A8s - 61.93
8. KTs - 61.79
9. KQ - 61.47

10. A7s - 61.00
11. A9 - 60.80
12. KJ - 60.64
13. 55 - 60.32
14. QJs - 60.22
15. K9s - 60.01

I realize that hands play differently. But these numbers don't lie. Heads-up these percentages reflect the likelihood of defeating random holdings with random flops. I don't want to go math freak here but it looks to me like all things being equal there is a significant gap between 66 and A9, and again between KJs and A8s, and once again KQ and A7s.

I agree that the slightness in EV makes these things less than crucial. But I'm trying like heck to establish some comfortable defaults.