Printable View
It seems to me like Kxs could be played the same as Axs. My reasoning is that the increased amount of times you hit your flush, whether on the flop, turn, or river (not just talking about flopping a flush) will make up for the occasions when your king high flush runs into an ace high flush?
Am i flawed here in thinking that the # of times you hit the flush will make up for losing to the nut flush?
Thoughts please...
IMO Axs is barely playable from late position with lots of dead money. This means that you'll really need the perfect table to be playing Kxs. One that limps alot and isn't afraid of a 3 flush board.Quote:
Originally Posted by thestrokes
-'rilla
Thanks for tips... few more questions
If you were willing to play Axs would you be willing to play Kxs? What situations would you only play Axs and not Kxs?
i agree totally with rilla, axs is only playable under perfect conditions like he described, i pretty much limit it to small/big blind only most of the time. i don't play kxs myself, but i don't really see any reason it would be different from axs. but, my personal logic is its probably marginally profitable, and i'd rather limit my variance than start playing a questionably profitable hand. I think you go down a slippery slope if you 100% assume no one will make a higher flush, and the flush alone is enough to make it a profitable hand. pretty soon you'll end up playing 3J, and saying but it was sooootted.
Thanks for reply,
I wouldnt play ever play any cards just because they were suited, i was just wondering if Kxs is comparable to Axs and if you can play Axs at a certain table if it would eba good idea to try playing Kxs. Thanks
I don't consider K-x suited to be playable. My thinking is that when there is three to a flush on the board, which is really the only profitable situation with this hand, players will generaly be unwilling to commit much to the pot with inferior hands, assuming they're somewhat cautious players. When an opponent actually is showing strength here, you can often expect to be beaten. So, essentially, I don't think it's very profitable.
Over a total of 10,000 Poker Tracker hands, (recently reached my first 10,000) Kxs totaled more money lost than Axs and this includes the many times I played it the first 2-3000 hands.
I no longer play it other than the blinds.
I agree with...well...everyone. Kxs is a hard hand to throw away, but it's necessary.
I have always looked at it in a very elementary way, and it is flawed, but it has worked. Bottom line is, I am going to have to hit three suited cards out of the 5 coming out if I am going to make a flush. If I make my K high flush, the odds are decent that someone else at the table also has a flush. In my opinion, it seems very possible that someone would have definately stayed in with that ace that will knock me out of the pot.
just my two cents...
ok thanks for tips i will make sure i chuck it next time
my personal opinion is that Axs has better value than Kxs not just from the relatively small difference in the flush, but offers two major advantages as well:
when you hid a board like AAx - ie not afraid of overcards as you would be if you had Kx and the board was KK
it also offers if the 'x' is 5 or less than you can hit a low str8 whereas you cannot with the King.
my 2 cents
i tend to limp Axs from most positions IF the table is non-aggressive preflop, otherwise just LP
Explain pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by bspahn
I would think that if i was playing Kxs and the board came K-K-etc. that i would have to be less worried about someone having trips witha stronger kicker than if i was playing Axs and got A-A-etc.
It seems like the only hand people could have a lot more hands that make trips if it was A-A-etc.
If you get action with K8s on a KKx board you're almost always beat. Unless you're playing with pet fishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by thestrokes
-'rilla
makes sense... wouldnt the same go for an A-A-x board also though?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Ha! Speaking of that, I was in a 2 table SnG this weekend, and early on, I limp in on A5s in late position, total of 4 in the pot. Flop comes up AA5. While I'm trying to figure out how to extract the most money, two people in front of me bet.
Well, gosh, thanks for simplifying that.
When the hand ends with me sitting on a monster stack, someone says something like "Damnit, it sucks having queens beat by an A5."
I couldn't even CHOOSE a response:
A. AK would have beat you too. Pretend I had that, it'll make you feel better.
B. And you're not responsible for not betting them pre-flop?
C. The two aces on the board and the other better weren't a bit of a giveaway?
I eventually went with (D), stunned silence.
only way he can say it sucks to have queens beaten by A5, is if he bet strong on the flop, got called, then check/folded from there on out. It does suck when queens get beaten by A5, but if you're a deuschbag and bet like crazy when two aces flop, you deserve it.
No, people will play Axs with a weaker x.Quote:
Originally Posted by thestrokes
-'rilla
enlightenmentQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Since drawing hands go up in value in limit, I do play along these lines there (as recommended in SSH, I think). Basically, that means limping it if possible (esp. in late position) - folding to any raises.
In NL, I have to know the table. I could consider Axs limp-worthy, late position only, or not worth it, just depending. The same is true of Kxs, but it's a much worse table that I'll play it at...and usually I'd rather it not be a full table either.
- Jeffrey
i might be doing something wrong.. .but i will play Ax suited from all positions. reason being that if you flop a 3suited board, sometimes people will draw dead for a flush if they hold a lower suited card.
Also consider that while the flush over flush thing may not be a big concern in a ring game, as you know its not very likely to happen, its a much bigger factor in a MTT.
Its a 100% drawing hand, that doesn't have near as much playability as a suited connector or one gapper (like a 75s) that can make a straight or straight draw (possibly along with a pair or flush draw). You're just hoping to hit a flush draw on the flop, and then you're hoping the flush hits. After all this, you still have to be worried about the possibility of a higher flush being out there (coupled with the concern that someone has the A for a better draw). Plus, players tendency to play Axs (especially in the same circumstances you'd be playing Kxs, unraised pots with many limpers) means that if someone was dealt it, they're likely in the pot when you hit the flush.
But getting back to why its a bigger problem in a MTT is that if you make the flush, its a very hard 2nd best hand to get away from, which means it easily could cost you your tournament, especially in an aggressive game, because its difficult to tell if the player is just raising or reraising because they made a lower flush or if they have the nut flush. Also consider that if either you or they are semi-bluffing before the flush hits (which is likely in an aggressive game), it could easily screw up your read, as if you're semi-bluffing, when they call and then raise when the flush hits you have no idea how high it is as they were previously putting you on a made hand, and if they've been semi-bluffing, once you hit you'll raise big, and could possibly misinterpret a reraise.
FINALLY, one last point, lets say you both make a flush, but yours is higher. You're likely to not get as much as you could've gotten if it were the nut flush, as you may be afraid to reraise for the above stated reasons.
If you're drawing in NL MTTs, you usually want to be drawing to the nuts (at least when facing big bets), because of fear of drawing a second best hand and also because you don't have the same implied odds if you're not confident you have the hand when you hit. Playing K-rag suited in less than optimal situations is kind of like drawing to a straight with a 7 with a board of 9TJ or drawing to an open ended straight draw on a suited flop. Its just generally not a good idea.
(blah blah blah - this is why I have so many words per post)
Edit: Side note: Recently I busted out in a MTT that I was doing very well in when I called from the BB with KT of diamonds after an aggressive player with a slightly bigger stack raised, with thoughts of implied odds in my head. The flop was rags with two diamonds , and when he fired out at it I put him on overs and reraised big, enough to pot commit me (expecting him to fold, but having outs if he didn't), and he immediately put me all in with his AQ of diamonds. The turn completed our flushes, but I was a big dog even if it didn't come. This is a bit different situation since we both had playable hands and not A-rag suited and K-rag suited, but it goes along the same lines.
(holy shit, I've managed to make it longer! Does 'Rilla get this much content into 10 of his posts combined?)
This was me after going through Super/System the first time. It works for Doyle for some reasons that might not apply to you, so take note:Quote:
Originally Posted by fkn2pt
-D has brass balls. He is able to push and hammer and pound all night long. If you play aggressive style in bursts, so to speak, you won't reap all the advantages that he does.
-Partly D plays like this to maintain his image as an "action man". This has value, but be aware that you're probably spending money for this fringe benefit.
-Sane people are deathly afraid of raising DB. If the people at your table do not fear you, Axs is really vulnerable to an LP raiser. If it's raised behind you, you need that flush draw to materialize, and it rarely does. When it does, it's an easy-to-read draw.
Other notes
-With 9 people at table, the chance that no one else has an ace are <31%. Ick. So there's a good chance your ace sucks, and that you will get raised (see above)
-All of this applies quadrupulously to Kxs, which DB plays about the same as Axs
I have a new favorite word “quadrupulously”Quote:
Originally Posted by LeFou
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by michael1123
-'rilla
Let me put it this way. I think I play K8s too much (kinda like I used to play T8s too much) in limit, and limit is all about drawing...
I don't play Kxs much either, but this got me thinking.
wouldn't the chances of Axs vs Kxs of the same suit, be right down there with AA vs KK? If say I get a BB special with Kxs and flop a flush, or fourflush, Axs of that suit is way down on my list of things to worry about. There are exactly 10 starting hands that beat me, which in a 10 person ring game is about 6.5%. This would mean the added value is much more from the other ways they can win.
that was my reasoning to begin with, that about 1 out of 15 times you will run the king high flush into the ace high flush but you stand to double the amount of flushes you make. But with all the negative feedback from this idea im a little hesitant to try it.
Well, I've been playing Kxs on-and-off, and Poker Tracker tells me that I should stick with K9s, KJs, KQs, and AKs only :wink: I've been tenaciously ignoring that advice. But you've all convinced me to swear off K-little-sooted for another couple weeks, at least until I want to start leaking chips again.
just to say remember you only hit your 3suited flop flush 1 in 120 times so dont go playing kxs off the blinds if your going for flopping the flush.
I may lay KTs if someone raises, any better x and ill be temped upon the situation