I was up against a villain in a NL Heads-Up SnG that would just open shove so many hands I could assume that much of the time he's certainly shoving garbage. Since your always getting 1-to-1 odds on this behavior, you need a hand that wins over 50% of the time against any two cards in order to show a profit. I called with KJ, and later I wanted to know how frequently the hand wins against any two, so I read "Texas Hold 'em Relative win rates for all 169 pocket hands" in a beginner fixed limit book decribing it as "the fallowing chart shows the win rate of each hand when played against any other hand". KJs had a 45.3% "winrate" but I knew something wasn't right since weak unsuited aces only won around 10%, so I did the EV calculation on poker stove. KJs had something like a 62% equity versus any two cards. A2o has about a 55% equity.

What's the difference between the winrate chart in the FL book and doing an EV calculation between any two? I don't get it, they seem to be the same but they obviously aren't since the numbers are drastically different.

Not sure I understand the question.

The bit about 'weak off suit Aces only won around 10% of the time' sounds way off.

According to ProPokerTools (I'm using the Odds Oracle software) the range of 'any A' v 'any two' has just over 61% equity.

According to the Oracle's Playable Hands tool, v any two, if you need 50% equity, you can profitably call with the following range:

A,K,QQ-22,QJ-Q5,JT-J8,T9,Qx4x-Qx2x,Jx7x-Jx6x,Tx8x-Tx7x,9x8x (where the x's indicate suitedness)

I'm asking what the hell this fixed limit books "pocket win rate" means, it's certainly not the same thing as equity

"Since your always getting 1-to-1 odds on this behavior, you need a hand that wins over 50% of the time against any two cards in order to show a profit."

I stopped there,
first statement is untrue
second statement is also untrue but is closer to reality... kinda

I'd go back and rethink your question after rebuffing some of your poker theory and correcting those statements.

If stacks are infinite, you should obviously just wait for AA.

Let
F=the probability that you win the match if you fold.
W=the probability that you win the math if you call and win.
L=the probability that you win the match if you call and lose.
E=your equity vs. ATC.

You should call when WE + (1-E)L > F. Assuming he never adjusts his strategy and you play fast enough that increasing levels don't matter, just write a program to solve your winning percentage for all possible stack sizes and play perfectly next time.

I don't understand how first statement is untrue. If villain open shoves before the flop (lets say stacks are 1500) then your risking 1500 for 1500 chips, 1 to 1. The blinds make the odds a tiny bit better but if that's why your criticizing then your being overly anal.

And if your getting one to one, if you win 1/2 the time you break even, correct? But I make simple mistakes when it comes to math, so I'm very open to criticism

You posted in Poker Theory and said the odds were always (=in every possible situation, not just the one you happen to be talking about) 1-to-1 when that's never the case. You still haven't even specified the blinds!
No. You lose to rake unless you're playing for play money. But if your only goal is to break even on chips, you can call with J5s for up to several thousand BBs even though its equity against a random hand is only 49.99%. At 10/20, J7o is close to the exact worst hand you can call with in the small blind (49.68%; 49.666...% needed).

It is right. Win rate is calculated by looking at a large database of hands and seeing whether people make money or lose money playing them.

Pre-flop equity is a very very different concept.

Ok cool, I understand now, thanx