Put the 9 in the middle bro.

That will require us to pair the middle, and two pair or trips to be able top air the ace on top.

9 on top makes it easier to make a middle pair that allows us to pair the 9 for royalties.

I like this line. A bonus of 4 for 9's up top is nice. Then we don't bind ourselves up in the middle (yet)

I don't understand any of what you just typed. You realize you don't need to put a card up top to start, right? If you need me to explain why putting a 9 in the middle is good when starting with JJ in the back... I'm sorry.

Which reminds me. The two things I think people get into the habit of always doing which are not always necessary:

1. As I just said, always putting a card up top. This hand being discussed is a good example of a hand that definitely should not be played with a card up top to start.

2. Always setting the smallest live card as a kicker to a big pair. Sometimes you can just wait to set a kicker. A good example is a hand like KKJT9. The 9 is far too big a card to make it an irrelevant second pair card. That hand should 100% be played as bare KK in the back, with either JT9 middle or JT middle 9 top. I prefer leaving the top open but whatever. Either way, you're better off waiting til you hit some small brick to give your kings a kicker.

I'll set the same way:

9
A
JJ2

JJ2 is a pretty weak hand on average to play in the back for three/four-handed.

The 9 on top makes sense because the 4's points of royalties and you won't get scooped if you pair.

How you will set QQKJ2?

If the 9 is completely live then I suspect it's a mistake not to put it in the back with the Kings. Missing out on a whole draws worth of improving your back is a pretty big deal (chance of hitting one or more of your current outs goes from 44.5% to 38% at best). Ofc you increase your chances of improving middle instead but I prioritize completing my back when I set pairs there and a pair of 9's in middle isn't that strong either. At least not strong enough to devalue your back this much.

Putting the 9 up top might be viable in this exact example since you have 6 outs to improve middle and get the top royal but doing so costs you some EV in the risk of missetting (unless you are going to play safe and put any early 9 draws in the middle which costs you overall EV) and you also sacrifice some EV for backdooring a boat in the back (which is not trivial if you are drawing live).

I'm always just talking about UTG sets unless dead cards are specified. Live kickers are very important, totally agree, Wolfram. This game gets vastly more complex as you get into 3rd and 4th setting positions. Almost all of my play is hu with QQ+ on top resulting in fantasyland bonus (If you don't know what that is, just think of it as roughly an extra 12 point royalty). So that will probably be shown in my posting.

How easy do you guys think it is to make 9s on top? The 4 point royalty is very rarely worth gambling a misset for. In spots where the 9 is live, I'm quite positive that it's an enormous mistake to be starting with it on top. It doesn't provide you any real high card value... I would venture to say the only time I'd EVER start with a 9 in my top hand is when 2 or 3 of them are dead in front of me.


As for QQJK2, unless the KQJ is suited there's basically only two ways you should ever consider setting: QQ2/KJ, or QQ2/J/K. Starting the K up top is the more aggressive set.

ran into an interesting spot a min ago. How to set 89TsssAdAc?

I set it:
AA
T98sss

(I fouled my hand missing the straight and flush in back. May have done results oriented thinking here)

I can def see that starting with a 9 top could be a mistake because of the risk of missetting vs the low value of 9´s as a top royalty. And yeah, I know what fantasyland means although I haven´t played it (only played the app so far).

But what do you think about my assertion that not starting with a kicker on a paired bottom is a mistake as well (specifically in the KKJT9 case). I really think that setting it as JT9 mid, KK back is worse than JT mid, KK9 back.

My reasoning is pretty simple. If you start with a kicker in your back hand you have 5 ways to improve on 6th vs 2 ways. If you start with it in the middle then you have 3 extra ways to improve middle but I don´t feel like making mid pair in middle is worth as much as making 2pair on bot immediately. Getting 2pair on bot early allows you to play the other positions much more aggressively.

There's also another downside to placing the 9 mid. If your 6th draw is not live, what do you do now? If you place it top then you have yet another street where you only have 2 outs to improve your back hand.

That set can range from "totally optimal" (fantasyland game with lots of Ks Qs and spades live) to "totally awful" (non-FL game with lots of spades dead). All your spots will fall somewhere in that spectrum. I have no idea where UTG in any ruleset falls in that spectrum, and I don't believe anyone who ever tells me they for sure know one way is better.

It's funny Wolfram, while I was typing that last post I thought of a few spots I'd put a 9 up top (other than when it's largely dead). Basically:

AA or KK with some combination of QTJ9 beneath.

I get what you're saying about a kicker helping you to 2pr/boats (and it's very important to make those hands), but I still think you're wasting the strength of a pair of 9s if you're making it as the "up" part of kings up. All the times you wind up with a hand like Ks and 9s with a pair of 5s in the middle add up to a lot of lost EV.

Especially in 3/4 handed games where more information will wind up being available to you, I would hesitate setting kickers 7 or higher to start in the back from EP.

A hand I just set.

AAJ87. Opponent hand set TT4/K/Q

I decided to play AA/J8/7

The first of any 2356 that I catch will go to the back most likely. I strongly believe this is the correct way to play.

This makes a lot of sense imo. Maybe I'm undervaluing how strong a pair of 9s in middle is. And like you said, you are mostly playing hu. I tried some hu vs the computer but I like 3-4 handed more because of the bigger swings.

The upside to your set is that you don´t need to make 2pair in the back. You can go 7s in front, pair of J/8 in the middle and bare Aces in back, scoop and collect a royalty in the front.

In a 3-4 handed game I think setting the 7 in back would be better though.

Just sent you a FB message, Wolfram. 2p2 PMing is very inconvenient on an iPhone.

Agree with you Wolfram

nCr

this is the holy grail

What ncr?

The math behind this is going to be beyond complicated. Assuming the question is "If I draw a card that will make a pair on the bottom and keep me from mis-setting, at what number of remaining draws should you place the card on the bottom."

To do this(I think) you would have to calculate your expected value for both plays:

(1) EV(place on bottom)
(2) EV(place elsewhere)

For simplicity let's say that your mid and top hands will split, meaning there is no chance of sweeping or being swept;

EV(1)= -1 (this is assuming, again for simplicity, you will lose the bottom hand if you make this play)
EV(2)= [RoyaltyValue*(%chance of making royalty)] – [MisSetPenalty*(%chance of MisSet)]

For flush(assuming 4 pts for Royalty and 1 pt for winning the bottom)

EV(2)=5*(%make flush) - 6*(1-%makeFlush)

Set the EV's equal and you have your break even point.

-1=5*(%MakeFlush) - 6*(1-%MakeFlush)
-1=5*(%MakeFlush+6*(%MakeFlush)-6
5=11(%makeFlush)
%makeFlush=5/11=45.4%

So you would need to be able to make your flush 45.4% of the time.
If all of your outs (10) are live then the breakeven point is crossed on 8th street where with 5 draws left your odds are *42.9%* via OFC Odds Calculator

/shameless self-marketing

Note: There are quite a few factors left out:
-You could possibly win the bottom without the flush
-Even if you don’t hit the flush you might not mis-set
-If sweeping/being swept comes into play these number change significantly.
-I now want to kms

Do you think that OFC could be the mainstream someday?

Hey Boc4life, I love your thoughts on the 9. I was playing it up top in simular spots. But your def right, if I play it in the middle it also helps the times you pluck a 9 right away. Now you can actually use it instead of hoping it doesn't show early.

I'm curious what you do with small pairs?

Plus 1.

In a hand like K6855, or 2258T, how are we starting?


(These sets are questions)
First:
68
K55?

Second:
58
T22

I guess these are pretty much the same hand. But what's good or bad about my thinking here? I pair the middle and I'm looking at a much thinner draw, having to make 2 pair in the back. It's doable but am I missing a more +ev play?

In looking at those hands, I guess the paired, being small could go in the middle...

I've been playing them differently but I'm not sure if my thinking is correct. I've been putting the next smallest card with the small pair. I would have set them something like this:
8
K
5-5-6

T-8
2-2-5

Ill tell you both why I do this and why I think I might be wrong.

I do it because I figure that I'm going to have to hit 2 pair or better to win the bottom so I liked strengthening my 1 pair or better draws in the top and middle

My thinking may be flawed because I might be discounting the strength of my 2 pair and boat hands on the bottom. Is playing it my way setting me up to lose to better 2-pair or boats often enough to not make up for the better pairs I might make in the top and middle?

Or... Am I totally off base and should be leaving the pair by itself on the bottom until I get more information about which cards are live?

I'm trying to calculate the probability of making a flush when starting with 2 of the suit, but I think I'm making a math error somewhere.

Calculations:
Probability (drawing 0 of suit) = C(36,8)/C(47,8) = 9.62%
Probability (drawing 1 of suit) = C(36,7)*C(11,1)/C(47,8) = 29.20%
Probability (drawing 2 of suit) = C(36,6)*C(11,2)/C(47,8) = 34.07%

So then probability of making the flush (drawing 3 of more of suit) = 1 – P(0 of suit) – P(1 of suit)-P(2 of suit) = 27.11%

This seems high. Am I making a math error somewhere? If any of my steps aren’t clear I’d be happily to clarify.