Equilab says that for UTG open raise KQs is better than AQo



does anybody really prefers KQs to AQo?
comments?

No and not how equilab's matrix works.

Because its UTG you are never going to be happy playing a big pot with AQo when flopping a single pair. KQs can make a lot more flushes and more straights than AQo, because of its playability and the hand winning large pots more frequently it makes it a better raise. Maybe equilab is wrong here and the raw value of AQo outweighs the big pot strength of KQs but I doubt it. All you need is JT on the flop or 2 suit to have a really good drawing hand which will happen about ~15% of the time you open.

Obviously in weak games AQo is much better because you will be able to get good value from flopping an ace and getting called down by weak villians who also flopped an ace or queen. The same applies to KQ tho as you will get great value off people calling with KJ KT K9 etc when you both flop top pair. However in weak games players will call with a lot more Ax than Kx so AQ will make you a lot more money, in tougher games tho people wont pay your AQ off so you really want KQs to hit a flush with to win a big pot off a strong villian with.

I don’t know how Equilab ranks pre-flop hands but Poker Stove ranked each hand against 3 random opponents. When I did that in Equilab KQs does slightly better than AQo (64.5% vs 63.4%). So that may be the rationale.

However, when I compared AQo vs KQs versus one opponent, with opponent range options of 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% and random, AQo always had the higher showdown equity.

Also, I doubt very much that Equilab accounts for “playabiiity” since Poker Equity Calculators don’t normally include folding potential as far as I know.

Equilab's rankings use the same formula that Stove did. They are based on raw equity vs three random hands, as Statman said above.

*******Equity*****Win*****Tie
UTG****38.19%**37.20%***0.99%*{ KQs }
UTG+1**20.62%**19.62%***1.00%*{ random }
UTG+2**20.59%**19.60%***1.00%*{ random }
MP1****20.59%**19.60%***1.00%*{ random }

*******Equity*****Win*****Tie
UTG****36.81%**35.72%***1.09%*{ AQo }
UTG+1**21.08%**20.07%***1.00%*{ random }
UTG+2**21.06%**20.06%***1.00%*{ random }
MP1****21.05%**20.05%***1.00%*{ random }

When running against 3 random hands, AJs>88>KQs>ATs>AQo

Since most real world hands are played heads up (not multiway), almost never up against ATC, and are seldom all in pre-flop, the Equilab/Stove rankings are far from perfect for building opening ranges.

I mean, Equilab doesn't put 44 into a range until you drag the slider to 36.6%. I know plenty of people that open 44 UTG. They don't also open K7o and Q5s (which Equilab ranks slightly higher) in that position.

The values I noted above were for the hands against a single random opponent but AQo was the slightly better hand.

Arty has the correct values against 3 random villains showing why KQs has a better ranking than AQo using that ranking criterion.

can you share your full ring OR chart?
adding avg month profit
maybe few charts for different effective stacks

i prefer 67s to AQo UTG but thats beside the point.

also hot and cold equity doesnt matter much, its better to have hands that retain their equity post flop etc

EV =/= equity. Certain hands while higher in raw equity, do not get to realize that equity over various postflop spots, while other hands over realize equity. Also playing in position you realize more equity than oop. We don't really care about a hand's equity preflop unless we are facing an all in; we care about a hand's EV, which cannot be calculated using equilab (and for the record cannot be determined to a 100% accuracy by any software currently because while "close" to solved, the game isn't 100% solved).

Without having a complicated answer I believe it’s because of the benefits of suitedness and connectiveness.

Running out 5 cards on the board would generate more flushes and straights where AQo only has the benefit of straights and less likely runner runner flushes with the suit of the A.