Be careful what you wish for

is a common saying. How do we play those premium and the not so? The grouping used by Sklansky/Malmuth in their book can be argued. But then what can’t?

Hold’em Hand Groupings

Group 1: AA KK QQ JJ AKs

Group 2: TT AQs AJs KQs AK

Group 3: 99 KTs QJs KJs ATs AQ

Group 4: A8s KQ 88 QTs A9s AT AJ JTs

Group 5: 77 Q9s KJ QJ JT A7s A6s A5s A4s A3s A2s J9s T9s K9s KT QT

Group 6: 66 J8s 98s T8s 55 J9 43s 75s T9 33 98 64s 44 K8s K7s K6s K5s K4s K3s K2s Q8s 22 87s 97s

Group 7: 87 53s A9 Q9 76s 42s 32s 96s 85s J8 J7s 65 54 74s K9 T8 76 65s 54s 86s

One might sometimes want to move the JJ down a group. Another time we’ll promote AQ above where it is in the list. Blind level, position and maybe a good read will conspire to make that happen. You will note that there are cards that don’t make group 7. (Sorry Grubby but the hammer is one.)

What causes this blog was an article in Cardplayer about a specific hand that had been describe in ‘detail’ by Hellmuth. The details don’t quite jibe but when do we agree at the tables or in the aftermath?

Binger – with a PhD in theoretical physics – seems credible in his view. Hellmuthian arrogance does seem the possible culprit. Bayne_S may not have gotten away from his QQ in the preflop. But, I guarantee he wouldn’t have gone broke on the flop that came with that JJ hand. Phil, for whatever reason, could.

That’s the problem with grouping and such. It is really a fairly insignificant part of the game. Tournament play is big about not going broke. That is especially true when you’ve an M = 40 even if that is a below average stack at the table. Binger’s description tends to paint it a bit worse than it might have been. But, it also was a tell loaded situation that a pro should never find himself in.

Would you rather play AA or JJ? As Doyle points out, “AA loses big pot and wins small ones.” That makes you think JJ might be the better hand if you can play it better than Mr. Hellmuth did.

Looking down at group 7 show a pretty ratty collection of hands. Yet, they are on the list because they have strong implied odds. With them you need a predictable player that can’t get off a Group 1 hand. That works against $2 tournament donks and those with eleven bracelets.

Mr. H is impressed with his skills. And that comes with some street cred. But, nobody plays error free and at time may not even come close.

This weeks blog have a common theme. I’m not providing the easy answers. Giving easy answers is fun; but, when it can be right to call with ‘the hammer’ in a raised pot, the easy answers are few and far between. After all, in pot limit Omaha you can flop the nuts and still have a solid reason to fold. In a limit game, you can’t protect a winning hand and it often goes down in flames. Being right for the moment doesn’t give us a right to the win. If you can’t fold the occasional hand you figure you are ahead on, you have a leak in your game. There are hands that are even winning hands that are a dog to the opponent. Binger’s article seems to refute that but it really doesn’t. Hellmuth seemed like a donkey but in a tournament situation I’d rather have an unknown at the table. Although, that guy may be better than Binger, Hellmuth and certainly me. The proof of that is the 9 ‘unknowns’ that will play the big one out in November.

ADDENDUM:

I haven’t figured out how to post pictures in the latest incantation of WordPress. But, I have figured how to drag them from other sites.

The Brazilians are certainly fit and friendly. I am not sure how bright though. If you look under their country’s flag, you’ll see they needed their clothes tagged so they dressed properly. Hopefully, there’s also a summer camp type tag too. Don’t want them losing any more attire, do we?

This entry was posted on Friday, August 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm and is filed under Journal, Tournaments.