KQs is MUCH better than KQ?

F4STFORW4RD

F4STFORW4RD

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Total posts
767
Chips
0
So we keep being told that having two hole cards that are suited only makes them slightly more likely to win. However I believe that KQs is in Sklansky Group 2, whereas KQ only manages a lowly group 4 position. I realise that KQs is a very easy hand to play (or to fold :p), but why the enormous difference in usefulness?

I quite often see people calling a shove with KQs in tournaments, which to me seems quite courageous. Should I be calling shoves with KQs? I would probably be more likely to call a shove with a middle PP than KQs.
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
If I'm not mistaken, the Sklanski Grouping is based on Fixed Limit Hold 'em. You can just toss the whole ranking system goes out the window in No Limit, doubly so when you're talking tournament play. IMO, KQ is a great short stack shoving hand and a reasonable calling hand when facing a short stack all-in, especially after the anti's kick in. Other than than that, I don't even like calling a raise with KQ, suited or not. It's the most dominated hand there is. AIPF, KQs is only a couple of points better than KQo and doesn't even enter into my decision making when considering a preflop shove or call. Barring some opponent specific situations, the only suited hand I'll call a single preflop raiser with is with a suited Ace as when you do have a draw it's to the nuts, and you're very likely to stack the guy who fell in love with KQs.
 
M

Marginal

Junior Member
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Total posts
10,426
Awards
3
Chips
2
It adds 3% equity having the flush draw.

Four Dogs, just a reminder, we dont need to nut peddle ever hand, second nut flush is a pretty solid hand to have.
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
It is, but the reverse implied odds for high suited hands like KQ, QJ etc can be pretty frightening. Even experienced players have a hard time getting away from non nut high flush hands and draws. People just tend to overplay suited hands in general. I'm no exception. In every case from KQ down to TJ, my unsuited hands have out performed their suited equivalents.
 
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
Only fish fold KQs preflop to a single raise.

So we keep being told that having two hole cards that are suited only makes them slightly more likely to win.

Anyone who says this doesn't know what they are talking about. It's a great thing about poker, when people spout off stuff like this or say AK is a "drawing hand" or "a coinflip at best" you know instantly they are a moron.

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 48.602% 46.15% 02.45% 726995188 38646676.00 { 66+, A4s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 1: 51.398% 48.94% 02.45% 771031140 38646676.00 { KQs }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 48.810% 48.40% 00.41% 1297725036 11107188.00 { 66+, A4s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 1: 51.190% 50.78% 00.41% 1361528652 11107188.00 { 88 }

Of course this and the "3%" is just hot-cold/all-in pre equity. There's no guarantee you will get to see all 5 cards; obviously if you fold on the flop, you are folding some non-negligible amount of equity. Being suited enables you to win more pots because:

A. you continue on more boards, making a better hand
or
B. enables you to take down more pots without a hand

i.e. you call raise on button with KQ spades. Board is Ts 7h 2s. You call on your flush draw and can hit a spade or K/Q for top pair or running cards J/9 or A/J for a straight. With KQo on that board, your equity is much lower and whatever equity you have, you get shut out of when facing a big bet.
 
M

Marginal

Junior Member
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Total posts
10,426
Awards
3
Chips
2
It is, but the reverse implied odds for high suited hands like KQ, QJ etc can be pretty frightening. Even experienced players have a hard time getting away from non nut high flush hands and draws. People just tend to overplay suited hands in general. I'm no exception. In every case from KQ down to TJ, my unsuited hands have out performed their suited equivalents.
Then you are playing some bad poker?
 
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
It is, but the reverse implied odds for high suited hands like KQ, QJ etc can be pretty frightening. Even experienced players have a hard time getting away from non nut high flush hands and draws. People just tend to overplay suited hands in general. I'm no exception. In every case from KQ down to TJ, my unsuited hands have out performed their suited equivalents.

yeah, you are doing something really wrong.
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
Well, maybe. I'm a winning player. Are you?
 
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
LOL, that's solid.

Your sample size must be very small because you are making fundamental mistakes.
 
M

Marginal

Junior Member
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Total posts
10,426
Awards
3
Chips
2
Well, maybe. I'm a winning player. Are you?
You realize, that this is the worst arguement you can make when someone critizes your play. I'm sure Baudib is a winning player and I believe I have won as well. So what is your point?

This kinda post will be what stops you from beating mid stakes incomparison to micro and low stakes. So continue.
 
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
haha, yeah, totally.

Look, poker isn't like painting or poetry. It's not a subjective, personal pursuit where goals and aims and tastes are different for everyone. Actions are either +EV or -EV or 0EV.

If we had enough information and could accurately account for every element including game flow, history, image, tilt factor, etc., then we could know precisely what we should do in every hand. The only things really to argue about are whether the incomplete information we have can be accurately assessed and how to then apply that informatio.

Anyway, there are areas where there is no debate possible. This is one of them. Suited cards are more profitable than unsuited cards of the same rank.
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
You realize, that this is the worst arguement you can make when someone critizes your play. I'm sure Baudib is a winning player and I believe I have won as well. So what is your point?

This kinda post will be what stops you from beating mid stakes incomparison to micro and low stakes. So continue.
It is a bad argument and has nothing to do with leaks. Everyone has them. Keep in mind that I've been playing for many years and I've gone through many many playing styles, some better than others. My remark to baudib was based more on his smug insulting tone than anything else. I mean, you better have some decent street creds if you're gonna call someone you know nothing about a fish, right? I did follow up with a quick OPR and PTR check. It was kinda about what I figured it would be, maybe a little worse. He should keep his advice to himself.
 
Last edited:
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
you are, in fact, a fish. RIO for KQs and QJs, really? Unsuited hands are better? KQs/QJs are top 8% hands, if you aren't playing them, what are you playing? Furthermore they each play better postflop than stuff like 99 that's "ahead."

FWIW I'm up $10,700 on OPR between Tilt/Stars (incomplete results; it breaks down to $8,400 w/23% ROI on Tilt and $2,300/39% on Stars, the Stars account is missing probably 3 years worth of data for some reason), don't know about PTR (I can't log in).
 
Last edited:
M

Marginal

Junior Member
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Total posts
10,426
Awards
3
Chips
2
It is a bad argument and has nothing to do with leaks. Everyone has them. Keep in mind that I've been playing for many years and I've gone through many many playing styles, some better than others. My remark to baudib was based more on his smug insulting tone than anything else. I mean, you better have some decent street creds if you're gonna call someone you know nothing about a fish, right? I did follow up with a quick OPR and PTR check. It was kinda about what I figured it would be, maybe a little worse. He should keep his advice to himself.
Well Dude, I don't care what your OPR and PTR is because at the end of the day if you are making statements like the one above regarding a hand, someone is going to point it out. Regardless of if they say, oh poor baby or ****ing fish guy, it doesnt matter cause it is a valid point.

I dont care what baudib's PTR is, he made a legit comment and your reponse is childish at best.

I do no care how long you post here, or what cred you think you.

I dont care about any of that, no one does. All we care about is pointing out a flaw in your logic.

So with this, I concluded and will point out, you are coming off as a mighty doucher.

If someone you "respected" on this forum, makes that same post, do you respond differently?
 
Last edited:
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
What flaw. Baudib is saying that calling with KQs vs a single raiser is better, IE more profitable, than folding. I strongly disagree. Rather than just say, "Your a fish!", why not support your statement with facts, or results, or anything that even sounds well thought out. So why don't you and your sidekick explain to us fish how it is that you show a profit in this situation. I'd be very interested.
Go ahead.
 
M

Marginal

Junior Member
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Total posts
10,426
Awards
3
Chips
2
What flaw. Baudib is saying that calling with KQs vs a single raiser is better, IE more profitable, than folding. I strongly disagree. Rather than just say, "Your a fish!", why not support your statement with facts, or results, or anything that even sounds well thought out. So why don't you and your sidekick explain to us fish how it is that you show a profit in this situation. I'd be very interested.
Go ahead.
Look at his post, make a rebudle. If you disagree say why, he provided equity calculations etc. in a post up there.

Ill give you a hint, it is post number 5
 
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
Hey, I'm game. I'm not going to spell it all out for you because, well, there's not much to say except that KQs is a kickass hand that flops incredibly well.

but to steer you in the right direction

Vs. a standard TAG who opens from MP or later

overall we're flipping (hot-cold equity-wise) with a range of, say, any pair AT+/A5s+/KT+/QT+/K9s+/Q9s+/J9s+ (that comes out to 19.5% of hands)

BEFORE THE FLOP we're actually behind 70% of the time but once the flop comes out we've moved ahead to 43.6% of the time, we'll improve on 4.2% of all turn cards to take the lead there, as well.

-- If we flop:

Top pair, we have about 78% equity vs. his range

Any pair (i.e. AKx or AQx boards), we have 70%

A pair with a flush draw, we have 84%

A flush draw with overs, we have ~56% equity vs. his range

An open-ender (JTx), we have 45.4% equity

A gutshot over with overs (T9x), we have 38%

Not to mention the times when you flop better than 1 pair.

I'm sure you can figure out on your own how being in situations like this would be profitable.
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
Your logic is bad and your advice is dangerous. I said I don't like calling a single preflop raise with KQ suited or otherwise and you replied that "Only fish fold KQs preflop to a single raise". That's what you said. Then you spout of some poker stove equity calcs that show how KQ does in an all-in situations as if that has anything to do with calling a preflop raise. Further more you used a range that gives the same weight to 66 and A4s as is does to the hands that are most likely to be raising such as AJ-AK and QQ-AA. Try plugging those hands in and see how you you do.

I stand by my statement that barring some specific situations, calling with KQ suited or not to a single raise is bad poker. You say that's fishy but then go on to give a very specific situation yourself. That's hardly negating my statement. The fact is that as pretty as KQs is, in a majority of the cases your going to be entering the the hand with an inferior hand. You may be ahead in those time you flop TP in which case you're not likely to get much action. When you're facing AK, AQ, AA, KK you're going to lose alot more than you win.
 
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
Your logic is bad and your advice is dangerous. I said I don't like calling a single preflop raise with KQ suited or otherwise and you replied that "Only fish fold KQs preflop to a single raise". That's what you said.

The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it unprofitable. To not play KQs means that you must play about 7/3 and that's pretty damn fishy.

Then you spout of some poker stove equity calcs that show how KQ does in an all-in situations as if that has anything to do with calling a preflop raise.

I also mentioned that KQs plays far better postflop than hands midpairs that are "head."

I also showed how dominating KQ is against a pretty standard generic range on numerous flop textures.

Further more you used a range that gives the same weight to 66 and A4s as is does to the hands that are most likely to be raising such as AJ-AK and QQ-AA. Try plugging those hands in and see how you you do.

Hands like AJ+/QQ+ don't come around very often. That's 5% of hands. Standard raising ranges comprise 15%-30% of hands. It sounds like you are a standard nit who has trouble reading hands and suffers from MUBS.

I stand by my statement that barring some specific situations, calling with KQ suited or not to a single raise is bad poker. You say that's fishy but then go on to give a very specific situation yourself. That's hardly negating my statement. The fact is that as pretty as KQs is, in a majority of the cases your going to be entering the the hand with an inferior hand. You may be ahead in those time you flop TP in which case you're not likely to get much action. When you're facing AK, AQ, AA, KK you're going to lose alot more than you win.

It is simply not a fact that KQs is an inferior hand. It is a top 5% hand, and I'll ask again, if you're not playing KQs, what are you playing?

I gave a pretty standard/normal range, some people raise 2% some 45%. 20% is pretty normal.

All hands fare poorly vs. the top of someone's range. But when you're facing KJ, KT, K9, QJ, QT, JT, not to mention the fact that you have tons of equity vs. stuff you're "behind" like AJ/AT/A9/JJ/TT/99, you are going to win a lot more than you win.

As for talking about specific situations, you're the guy who talked about RIO with KQ when you make a flush! FFS! If you can't profit off making the second nuts and ANY flush in general you need to rethink what you're doing.

Like I said, there is 0 room for debate on this issue, so it's not a matter of differing opinions or theories. KQs is a super profitable hand that should be played from all positions vs. almost all players. You are simply mistaken.

If you want to talk about 3-bet pots, then you would be correct in a lot of cases.
 
Last edited:
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
According to a study of 120 million hands on Pokerroom, of the 169 "unique" (AcAd is the same as AsAh) starting hands, 40 of them are profitable:

Pocket pairs 55-AA

A3s+

ATo+

KTo+, QJo

K8s+

T9s, JTs, Q9s+


Here are the groupings by profitability:

Top 5 hands (50% of profits): AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs

Top 6-14 hands (earns 30% of profits): TT, 99, AQs, AJs, ATs, AK, AQ, KQs, KJs

Top 15-26 hands (15% of profits): 88, 77, A9s, A8s, AJ, AT, KT, K9s, KQ, QJs, QTs, JTs

Top 27-40 hands (earns 5% of profits): 66, 55, A7S-A3s, K8S, KJ, KT, Q9s, QJ, J9s, T9s
 
jbbb

jbbb

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Total posts
1,384
Chips
0
Four Dogs, I don't know what stakes you play, but in micros and low mid-stakes playing hands like QJs and KQs are super profitable. Easy to get away from with too much heat (the passive players will let you know if you're beat) and good enough to rake nice pots when the fish play Kx and Qx.
Also they have the possibility of flopping big draws + power hands etc etc
 
Tammy

Tammy

Can I help you?
Administrator
Joined
May 18, 2005
Total posts
57,551
Awards
11
US
Chips
1,175
You realize, that this is the worst arguement you can make when someone critizes your play. I'm sure Baudib is a winning player and I believe I have won as well. So what is your point?

This kinda post will be what stops you from beating mid stakes incomparison to micro and low stakes. So continue.
You do realize, that comments like the ones below are what very likely put people off making some strategy/in-depth poker posts, right? Now, I know FD is a big boy and can handle his own, but why would you want to belittle instead of make valid counterpoints?

Then you are playing some bad poker?

yeah, you are doing something really wrong.

LOL, that's solid.

Your sample size must be very small because you are making fundamental mistakes.
etc., etc.
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
Tone of this thread needs to change now.

In my db when calling a preflop raise I am up 80BB/100 with KQs and DOWN 125BB/100 with KQo. Pretty clear cut to me.

Overall both are winners but KQs is a much bigger winner (50BB/100 vs 8BB/100).

My 500K hand sample gives the clear edge to KQs.
 
Top