A strong opinion of whether it's solvable or not would be influential to a player like Pokerstars deciding whether to spread the game.

So put the first ace in the middle. If your bottom is ugly/dead put the 2nd ace up top. Same result, safer.

In this example I wouldn't break because both setups are close already and you'll have an outside chance for flush or even flush-flush runout

in 109865 hand, if you put small flush cards on the bottom and get dealt offsuit middle card next, you're pretty much must make a flush and it won't happen very often; moreover, by locking 1098 in the middle you lose all flexibility, all AKQs must go to the front now increasing chances of a foul

If you're in position setting a gutter (HU) is not so bad - about 60% to get there if fully live. I haven't done the exact math for OOP but I think it's close to a coin flip. 2-flush not very good but I don't hate if last to act 4-handed and all outs are live. If they're overs to a pair or far-away unders I like that better, i.e. A/44/10c9c or x/234/10c9c - in other words, setting rows with draws that complement each other/stay out of each others' way.

It is now somehow unfashionable or wrong to put that A up top 'because of FL potential'. So I'm supposed to believe that putting an A in middle improves my ev for this hand and the next? like QQ and/or KK is more likely to appear along with an A and whatever gutshot or two pair I need in back v. hitting two pair in middle/back with A/45/78? That's a lot of specific things that have to go right for FL to happen that way. Until there's reams of data to disprove this, I'm pretty sure there's multiple ways to get to FL that have equivalent odds with the hand you put forth.

I love it when FL hits me organically within the context of a solid foundational set, and if my opponents want to take high-risk lines to get to FL, that's okay with me -- I can rely on them fouling a whole bunch. Has anyone actually worked out the foul % of hands going for FL? I'd guess that it's anywhere between 25%-40%.

3 to the straight for sure. Ace high top is tough to beat semi-often and makes it much tougher to get to FL. Ace middle with most starting hands is a staple IMO.


2 flush is superior, not only for flush draw but for the 9-high pair draw which is medium strength for middle. Your next offsuit 6-8 u draw can go top for a smaller royalty bonus draw.



Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

Hitting the bottom 2flush is 27%. Making the middle flush too is 2%, but that's ignoring that the middle flush has to be lower, so probably closer to 1%, and you foul a bunch going for it.

x
25
QJ9

and make pairs.

D'oh! This makes sense.

60% and a coin flip - THATS CRAZY! Its practically the same as a 3 flush!

I definitely think there is more to this. I have no idea how to do the math but someone might be able to. Is it easier to make 2 pair with a live 45 in the middle AND spike another A (to add to the one we have up top) or is it easier to spike another A for the middle (adding to the one we have) AND spike exactly QQ or KK for FL up top. Both scenarios require us to improve the bottom to 2 pair or better so I think that part cancels itself out of the equation.

Yes. I'll try for FL aggressively, but sometimes you just need to minimize your loss with a marginal hand that isn't improving. Don't foul and win ONE row to save 5 points (scoop/foul penalty). Thats pretty good incentive.

See, thats the problem. If I am keeping the 2 flush and spike a 9 I now have only one overcard in the bottom row (J). If I set it by card value and spike a 5 or a 2 in the middle, I still have 2 overcards in the bottom row to improve my hand. So a 2 flush has to be somewhat better on its own merit to warrant splitting up cards by suit rather than card value. Hoping to see some 2 flush math to justify keeping them together!

Ok, hitting a 2 flush is 27% - thats worth knowing. How easy is it to make a str8 out of QJ9?

Flush over flush is so hard to get but so enticing to see!

If the next card is a 9, which is less likely than a different card, then set flush draw 9 on bottom, the offsuit nine middle and start playing the bottom more aggressively. If your opponent shows 1 or more nines on initial set after you set and you pull the case 9 then im probably setting it in the middle no matter the suit

Yeah and 3 or 4 handed you can often rely on someone else fouling giving you at least a 6pt buffer zone against another players' strong hand.

Not sure I follow. We are talking about this setup:

Qd
9s2s
Jh5h

If I get the 9d or 9c I have to place it in the middie. Now I have:

Qd
9s2s9d
Jh5h

If my next few cards are non J or any heart Im still an uphill battle away from non-fouling. To combat this problem Im likely starting to put any non-heart live overcards (to the 9) on the bottom and killing my flush draw anyway, so why set it like this? Because 27% of the time we are making our flush on the bottom starting with 2 to a flush (according to Mikechike).

True its a drawing hand. 3,4,6,7,8 non flush card after pulling a 9 would go top. Flush card + 10-A go top and most of the time your hand would end up looking like: high card or small pair / 99 / JJ+. Its not like we drew a "badass set-it-and-forget-it" hand. This one is marginal and expects to yield marginal results on average


Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums
Edit: space breaks

Im with you on the marginal hand issue. Because this is a marginal hand that expects to end up pair/pair/highcard (or small pair) I was wondering what the benefit is of setting it as 2 flush over 2 flush vs. by rank alone. Since 27% of the time we will make a flush on the bottom (4 pts) it is a net benefit to set it as a 2 flush on bottom.

Actually, I have no idea if a 27% at 4 pts is enough to overcome the fact that this is a marginal hand that ends up pair/pair/high card (or small pair) which is a LOT easier to make without fouling if we just set it by card value (big cards/medium cards/small cards (or unpaired high card))

Open Face - You confuse me!

setting up the word problem -- the two scenarios assuming all live cards and throwing out the back row (I'm not totally sure that's the right move here since setting the A in the middle probably means setting the gutshot in the back row, but let's assume the back row will get made one way or another to support the upper two rows):

1) A/45/78: 45 middle provides a 6-outer then a 5-outer to improve, iow runner-runner drawing from 6 cards. Add to this equation a 3-outer for the front A.

2) x/A/4578: A 3-outer hits the middle A and then a QQ or KK hits up top (a four-outer then a 3-outer, or runner-runner drawing from 4 cards).

It appears on the surface like the array of draw cards is bigger for scenario 1.

[To simplify the equation I'm removing possibilities like catching a 4 AND another random pair (say JJ) in the middle, but adding those in would tilt the array strength even more towards the 45, like if a live J hits on 6th street, your J45 middle now has 9 outs for your runner-runner.]

The difference is that you pigeonhole yourself to that type of end result: pair/pair/pair or high card. The flush draw flush draw Q allows for more flexibility as the hand progresses.

I just posted this to have 73 posts to your 72 lol

heads-up: A K K Q 10

do you set the KK up top, A in the middle in the Q 10 in the back?
if you decide to go to the less risky set, is it the broadway draw in the back and the king up top? how else do u guys set this hand?

Nice.

Q
KK
A10

I don't like A10 on the bottom; now you need a Q in 2 places and the K's are gone so you're never making a straight. Q/A/KK10 is safer, you scoop a ton, and still have the FL potential.

so the KK up top is pretty terrible?

i know this isnt a beat thread but....

18 point hand with KK up top, hit the case king on the last draw to foul with trips up top.
a ****ing 35+ point 1 outter.

I've seen some absurd runouts, my favorite is when I had A/2pair/quads in pineapple and the last draw came AAA