Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Fold Poker
Wow, why is 99 0EV? That seems rubbish. I thought 99 was a slam dunk call of most 3bets, hence why I chose that hand specifically. I guess this is because vs non-GTO humans 99 does really well?
Against a simple range of TT+,AKo/s, AQo/s then AQs has 37.82% equity and 99 has 37.26% equity, so why such a disparity in EV?
I would have thought that 99 would be easier to play in the sense that it is dominated by TT+ but shouldn't lose too much post-flop to those hands if there is no 9 on the board, whereas AQs is dominated by QQ+ and AKo/s and it is much easier for it to lose reasonable money post-flop to those hands when an A or Q flop.
With 99, some of the only good flops are the ones with a 9, in almost every other flop you will face a bet and lose your entire share of the pot.
With AQs, there's a decent amount of flops where your EV is going to be good.
I don't think in real life 99 performs particularly better than in equilibrium, you will face a range bet on flop and have to fold or make a marginal flop peel that's worth 0 on average.
As for the relationship between equity and EV, you must take into account how that equity is realised.
With AQs, every time you flop a gutshot, flush draw, pair, you have high EV lines that get you to the river and allow you to hit your nutted 2p+ (Nutted hands are the biggest source of EV in poker).
With 99, you can rarely flop any back up equity that will allow you to continue and realise that potential turn and river equity, and even when you are able to continue, it's in a very low or 0 EV line which basically forces you to lose along the way everything you win when you hit.
Last edited by aner0; 11-20-2021 at 10:42 AM.