
Phoenix Wright
Legend
Loyaler
Is Ace-King suited really the "best drawing hand?" I hear this by commentators and poker players alike, but it occurred to me that this seems misleading - all right, hear me out...
I love AK
I'm not denying the power of this premium holding. What I'm actually wondering: Is AKs actually the best "drawing hand" or is it just the best hand in the "draws" category if it misses the draw?
The truth of the matter is that draws themselves do not hit that often. Many times the drawing hand will miss and you'll end up with high cards and the showdown coming down to the kickers. AK (suited or not) is the highest with Ace-high and King kicker. Ace-King is also special in the sense that this hand isn't as purely relying on draw power alone; if an Ace or King comes up, then we will now have Top Pair and Top Kicker; no other preflop holding can say this (except for AA if you stretch the definition a bit).
Wouldn't the "Best Drawing Hand" then be something like QJs or JTs? These hands might hit Flushes AND have Straight potential up or down. Take QJs for instance. If we use both hole cards instead of playing the board, then QJs can go down with QJT98 or up with AKQJT. Same holds true for hands like JT because there is enough "room" up as well as down. AK can't do this though. AK can go down (AKQJT), but there is no "up" with A,K,A+1, A+2, A+3 because no cards like this exist!
Since AKs can't hit Straights "up" then doesn't this limit its drawing power? AKs really shouldn't be called the "best drawing hand" then should it? Sounds misleading.
I'm not claiming that and hand like JTs is better than AKs (because it is not), but a lot of the equity AKs has is also about hitting hit pairs or having strong kickers. Since AK has these other ways to improve their hand, then AKs theoretically relies less on "draws" than a hand like JTs does. If AKs misses everything, then at least it is Ace-high, but if JTs misses everything, then it is only Jack-high and much less likely to win:
AKs seems better than a hand like JTs despite having less draw potential, so should AK really be called the "best drawing hand?"
I love AK
The truth of the matter is that draws themselves do not hit that often. Many times the drawing hand will miss and you'll end up with high cards and the showdown coming down to the kickers. AK (suited or not) is the highest with Ace-high and King kicker. Ace-King is also special in the sense that this hand isn't as purely relying on draw power alone; if an Ace or King comes up, then we will now have Top Pair and Top Kicker; no other preflop holding can say this (except for AA if you stretch the definition a bit).
Wouldn't the "Best Drawing Hand" then be something like QJs or JTs? These hands might hit Flushes AND have Straight potential up or down. Take QJs for instance. If we use both hole cards instead of playing the board, then QJs can go down with QJT98 or up with AKQJT. Same holds true for hands like JT because there is enough "room" up as well as down. AK can't do this though. AK can go down (AKQJT), but there is no "up" with A,K,A+1, A+2, A+3 because no cards like this exist!
Since AKs can't hit Straights "up" then doesn't this limit its drawing power? AKs really shouldn't be called the "best drawing hand" then should it? Sounds misleading.
I'm not claiming that and hand like JTs is better than AKs (because it is not), but a lot of the equity AKs has is also about hitting hit pairs or having strong kickers. Since AK has these other ways to improve their hand, then AKs theoretically relies less on "draws" than a hand like JTs does. If AKs misses everything, then at least it is Ace-high, but if JTs misses everything, then it is only Jack-high and much less likely to win:
AKs seems better than a hand like JTs despite having less draw potential, so should AK really be called the "best drawing hand?"