As you start to reduce the random hands then it becomes a call. I'm thinking around 70% equity for a raise in a HU situation (assuming the other three drop, in fairness there's usually at least one tag-along w/ a gutshot, TP, 2ndP). After adding slightly more detail, and reduced the random back-raise potential, these were the results:
ProPokerTools Odds Oracle Results (2.3 Professional)
Holdem, Generic syntax
Board - AsKh9d
PLAYER_1 (AA,KK)@100,(AxKx)@65,(AxKy,QQ)@40,(AxQx-AxTx,KxQx-KxTx,QxJx,QxTx,JJ-66,JxTx)@15,(Ax9x,Tx9x)@5
PLAYER_2 20%
PLAYER_3 20%
PLAYER_4 20%
PLAYER_5 99
600000 trials (randomized)
All-in Equity
| Equity % | Wins Hi % | Ties Hi % | Wins Hi Count | Ties Hi Count | |
---|
(AA,KK)@100,(AxKx)@6... | 23.3305% | 23.0967% | 0.4808% | 138580 | 2885 | |
20% | 5.8943% | 5.5590% | 0.6882% | 33354 | 4129 | |
20% | 5.8472% | 5.5053% | 0.7025% | 33032 | 4215 | |
20% | 5.8524% | 5.5067% | 0.7097% | 33040 | 4258 | |
99 | 59.0756% | 59.0753% | 0.0005% | 354452 | 3 | |
Also, if there's a tag-along then your raise either gets another bet from both, or you get murdered by the supposed AA-KK. It looks like a raise with a tag-along otf to me. But, with an "older woman" (or my adjustment to older woman), then the equity is not enough to justify a raise in a HU situation. I gave the 3 peeps in middle position 20% of all hands, though detail can be added to their ranges (not likely to have their top ten percent and are from their 10%-15%), but don't know how to do that quickly.
And, discounting random candidates entirely in low limit is, I think, is as wrong as over-counting random hands with an elderly woman.
Last edited by leavesofliberty; 06-29-2017 at 01:11 PM.