It was hard for me to be upset with this post for three reasons. First, the poster called me the "almost always correct" Andy, a title I’m not unhappy with. Second, he pointed out something I could have gone into more detail on, and I almost always enjoy a chance to expand on ideas. Third, it turned out I wasn’t actually wrong, because when I examined the page in "Supersystem" to which he had been citing J-Q suited as a non-trouble hand, I noted it was in the No-Limit section, a critical difference!
So, leaving my ego out of it for a moment, lets take a look at what poker players mean when they talk about "trouble hands," and then shift over into the big difference between limit and no-limit when examining starting hands.
WHAT IS A “TROUBLE HAND”
Unlike certain exotic poker phrases like "the nuts" or "flopping a monster," the words "trouble hand" point even new players more or less in the right direction. They are hands that tend to lead to trouble.
More specifically, "trouble hands" lead to trouble because they are just good enough to seem interesting and potentially powerful, and just bad enough to lead either to small wins or big losses. For example, while J-Q suited might not be a "trouble" hand when played correctly, it is indeed a trouble hand when played into a flop like the one I mentioned in the article: Q-7-6 rainbow.
Given that flop, J-Q suited no longer has straight or flush potential, and is probably getting significant action only from players who have it beaten badly (A-A, K-K, A-Q, Q-Q, K-Q, 7-7, 6-6, 7-6, to say nothing of oddballs who might be playing Q-7 or Q-6, suited or otherwise). The best hope for Jd-Qd on this flop is to run into someone playing J-J, 10-10, 9-9, 8-8, Q-10 or Q-9, and that's a pretty thin hope, because few players holding any of those hands are going to give a whole lot of action on a flop of Q-7-6. Most of my equity holding J-Q suited comes from flushes, straights, and flopping two pair, not from pairing one of the two cards.
(Glazer note, 2004: While I still agree with this basic advice, I must admit that Internet players in particular are getting wilder and wilder, and will often call you down all the way holding something that J-Q can beat with that flop, ESPECIALLY if you raised going in, because so many of them are thinking you raised with an A-K or A-x suited, have missed the flop, and are now trying to buy the pot. While “calling you down” isn’t exactly BIG action, it’s not terrible. This shows yet another reason to hold to the premise that in most situations, if you’re willing to enter for a call, you should at least consider entering for a raise. Had you limped in with Q-J, someone playing 9-9 would – as odd as this seems – be less likely to call you down than if you had entered the pot via a raise. Welcome to poker, 2004 style.)
In other words, J-Q is a “trouble hand” because if you are not good enough to get rid of it when you flop top pair, you will probably either lose a very large pot or win a very small pot, and that’s trouble. Top pair-top kicker is a good hand (so, for example here, A-Q would be a good hand, but not great, because it is still losing to A-A, K-K, Q-Q, 7-7, 6-6, and 7-6; let’s assume your opponents don’t play hands like Q-7 suited). Top pair-second kicker is a fair hand. Top pair with anything less is trouble. (Glazer note, 2004: it’s trouble, at least, against strong players. Against weaker players, it can be profitable. If you find yourself in a game where people routinely play hands like Q-9 and hang in to the end if a queen flops, J-Q suited is not a “trouble hand” in that game, even though of course you will get buried by K-Q, A-Q, and other strong hands.)
This sort of analysis is precisely why blindly following starting hand charts, without reading accompanying explanations, can hurt your hold’em game. It isn’t enough to know what “group” J-Q or J-Q suited fall into. You have to understand why a hand is strong or weak, and when.
LIMIT HOLD’EM TROUBLE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM NO-LIMIT TROUBLE
I must confess, when I first read that I had called J-Q suited a "trouble hand" and that Doyle Brunson had not called it one, I figured I had goofed. I don’t suppose it’s impossible I could be right in a disagreement with Doyle, but I would make Doyle a 1,000-1 favorite on any random debate.
Fortunately, when I consulted the specific section in Supersystem where Doyle was writing about "Trouble Hands" on page 505, I noted that he was writing in the NO-LIMIT section of the book, while my column was about a 10-20 LIMIT game.
It is vital, in your poker education, that you distinguish advice about no-limit poker (or its closely related cousin, pot-limit poker) from advice about limit poker. The games are remarkably different. Many players who excel at limit struggle with no-limit, and vice-versa.
Like Doyle (I’m sure he breathes a sigh of relief, hearing that I agree with him), I don’t consider J-Q suited a “trouble hand” in no-limit. I'm much more interested in J-Q suited in a no-limit game than a limit game, assuming I can get in cheaply, because it’s the sort of suited connector hand that can flop a monster and break someone. For example, how would you like to be holding A-K against someone holding J-Q when the flop comes A-K-10? Or how would you like a 10h-7h-2h flop against someone holding 10-10 (or two black aces)?
That doesn’t mean I’m in love with J-Q suited in no-limit. I’d certainly rather hit my straight than my flush. Third nut flushes can lose you a lot of chips. But adding the suited value makes it a playable no-limit hand, if you don’t get excited when the flop comes Q-7-6 rainbow.
In limit hold'em, there are not a lot of hands with which I like to call two bets cold. Normally, I either have something worth three bets, or I have something that belongs in the muck. I don't know what Doyle's view about J-Q suited is in a limit game, but if one player has raised and no one else has entered the pot, and I see J-Q suited, I'm tossing it into the muck unless I'm in one of those loose passive games where I can count on three more people calling two bets cold and not putting in a third bet. Even suited, it is not a good candidate for calling two bets cold except under very specific circumstances.
That’s a useful little lesson, but not nearly as important as remembering to distinguish advice about no-limit plays from limit plays. If you own books about both games, place them on different shelves. They belong far apart from one another.
Hot Right Now sponsored by:
In Texas Hold'em, if someone suddenly bets into you or raises, and you are considering folding, be sure to first look at the amount of chips that the player has in front of him. If he is out of chips it's likely that he is bluff raising/betting because he knows he will go all-in on that hand anyway.
