RIO is not what you expect to lose on future streets. You never take an action expecting to lose money because if you did you'd fold.

I don't think I've ever seen a really good definition for RIO, but I relate it to the idea that hands with flat equity distributions under-realize equity because they can be forced to risk additional money in order to reach showdown.

Not so much under-realize, only because that whole realization thing is quite misleading/not defined well/misued.

I think the simplest way to describe RIO would be some sort of EV deficit that must be calculated into an action relative to some combination of stack depth and future hands strength, yada yada.

You already defused this whole thread IMO. It's still just about range not the same old ridiculous fish-speak that talk about how AA is somehow problematic 9 ways to a flop. Especailly at 100bb, you can make it 15 and then just shove the correct number of flops and make money with AA if the spr is 2, and then do the same with a certain range that just happens to include AA and will create problems for all callers on boards.... make money from bluffs here too.

But it does. How much someone can win playing set vs overpair is not the same as how much someone can lose playing overpair vs set.

This is a known concept in poker called reciprocality.

Therefore your RIO could very well be higher than your IO and offset any positive EV that you may have. And this is precisely why some people could actually make more money playing 88 than AA from UTG.

You can run a simple equity calculator and see that it is much easier when there are more players involved...hence the rationale that you might not want to play with that many players.

Now I am convinced that you are trolling, and calling you a troll might actually be a compliment.

AA is the best possible hand preflop...not sure what you think the answer might be and how it might differ from fact.

Uhh...yes.

I mean...ya...ok.

Yes, and it is also why I was curious why you thought that 88 and AA has same IO. Now we know.

Let's look at some examples using 88 and AA on K82 flop:

For 88, if opponent(s) has Kx, turn and river blank will likely yield $z amount of money.

For AA, same scenario, the money will likely yield the same amount as $z.

Above is pretty much your argument, and that might be a more common scenario if these were situations involving 2 or fewer opponents.

However, the basis of this entire thread is the argument that we want as many opponents in the hand as possible.

In a scenario with as many players as possible, 88 on K82 board has far more IO for the simple fact that we can beat a much bigger range of hands than AA, especially in a range that makes us more money, hence the IO (and RIO for our opponents).

I can probably spent a whole post breaking down why, but if you are still struggling to see how 88 has higher IO than AA against TP and MW, maybe consider doing some equity calculation and run some scenarios on turn and river.

It's a partially correct answer, and maybe that's why you have tough time seeing how AA has higher RIO than 88.

RIO is simply how much you can expect to lose with future decision(s), and it does not have to be directly correlated to completing a draw.

On K82 board, AA could lose to a 5 on the turn or 2 on river, and because we obviously cannot see our opponents' cards, whatever we end up paying off with losing hand in SD is RIO.

As you can imagine, if it's a HU situation, RIO is lower. If the pot is smaller, RIO is also lower.

No, but I do appreciate that you are responding very plainly and clearly to what I wrote. LLSNL discussions need more of this.

The discussion is that in scenarios in which 88 or AA do not hit a set, AA will lose more money.

If 88 doesn't hit a set, he folds. Hand is over, no RIO.

If AA doesn't improve and more money goes in, there is the question of how much of that money is +EV, and that is potentially RIO.

You seem logical so far, can you see that decision tree becomes far more complicated on turn and river when you have to play against 5 or 6 more players? And because of that, the chance of AA putting in bad money is also pretty high?

Not quite. You correctly picked part of the argument but missed the rest and the likely conclusion that you may not want as many players in the hand as possible when you have AA UTG.

88 is simple. You hit a set and you proceed. You miss the flop and you fold. It requires less skill and it carries low RIO. I think we can both agree.

AA is not so simple, because most of us do not just fold on the flop. Yes, AA is ~60% against 8 random hands on the flop, but what about turn and river? Is it hard to see that the more opponents we have, the more likely we will be running into a hand that flopped better than AA?

All makes sense why some of you could not get past the whole thing.

Just like how IO is not set in stone because your opponents could have a weaker or stronger hand, RIO is not either.

And you are right, no one takes an action expecting to lose money, and it is precisely why RIO exist.

It is the money you lose when you thought you're taking an action to win.

Simple example: AA on K82 board. AA cbets into 88 and 88 calls.

Turn is 2, AA bets again, 88 calls.

River is 5, AA bets again, 88 raises, AA calls.

Whatever AA lost after the flop is RIO.

Whatever 88 won after the flop is IO.

Do you routinely throw in random jargons, like how you inexplicably used weighted average in a simple calculation?

RIO is as simple as putting bad money in the pot when you mistakenly think you are winning.

Tanqueray I’m going to say some controversial things.

AK is better than 98s

AA is better than 55.

Your take?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's interesting that you think I am trolling you just because my opinions differ, even though I am breaking down and elaborating my thoughts.

Yet at the same time, you are asking very silly questions as if you just learned poker.

Please quote anywhere in my posts where I might even suggest that AK is less than 98s or AA is worse than 55.

Or do you not understand how context matters in poker?

And perhaps you are actually new to poker, because it seems that the entire discussion boils down to which hand is stronger preflop.

Let me ask you a more complicated question:

Final table at main event and you have 50% equity in either choice of two players.

Would you rather have Johnny Poker and always be dealt preflop starting hands at 60% equity or better.

Or

Would you rather have Phil Ivey and always be dealt preflop starting hands at 40% equity or worse.

Why I believe that it's profitable, but suboptimal, if everyone calls

I've heard 2 main arguments as to why "we want everyone to call" and I have 2 counterarguments to that:

Argument 1: You're getting a great price to set mine with your AA here in a 10way pot.

Response: Yes, it's profitable to set mine with your AA, and you have a small chance of set-over-setting someone too, but AA is profitable in any context. The real question is: is it more profitable to set mine than it is to play normally? And I'm going to guess the answer to that is no. In an online poker environment against tougher opponents, getting dealt AA preflop typically results in an average win of around 10bbs, but in a live setting, we can probably expect to win closer to 20bbs ($60) worth of EV every time we're dealt AA preflop. So do you win $60 in EV every time you turn your Aces into a pure set mine in a 10way pot?. Almost certainly not, unless you can actually expect to stack multiple players every single time you flop a set, and never lose to something like a flush draw, which is unrealistic.

Argument 2: Your AA has something like 40% equity in a 10way pot, so you gain EV with more callers.

Response: Equity and EV aren't always directly proportional like that. There are 2 things that make your EV far lower than your equity:
1) You're OOP. When you're out of position, you won't get to realise your full equity. And we're OOP to most players.
2) You have a bluff catcher. In a 10way pot, when you don't flop a set, your overpair is just a bluff catcher. People can play their draws aggressively and push you off your hand. If someone flops 2pr, maybe they stack off on the flop and force you to fold, when you would have counterfeited them on the turn or river. The people who have a polarisation advantage over you (strong draws and 2pr+ that can comfortably stack off on the flop) will get to realise far more of their equity than you will with your 1pr bluff catcher.

So what's the correct answer? I don't know, but my guess is 1-3 callers, and preferably from the SB and BB.

What happens TO RIO with set under set?