You're listing the equities AA has against those hands.

I played 6-card Plo hi-lo and I can't figure out why A6xxxx lost to 24xxxx for the low:
Board: 87T,T,4
I thought the the nuts, seconds nuts etc was A2, A3, A4 , A5, A6, 23,24,25 etc on this board

Can someone explain how 24 beats A6. It was online.

er, you're going to need to tell us the other cards he had, but if he has any ace, three or five, that (and his two) are both lower than your six. 87641 is higher than 87542, 87432 or 87421

sorry, his hand was 25XXXX VS A6XXXX

I don't play Omaha, but is it possible that the A doesn't count as a low card for this variant?

No, A2xxxx would be nut low herr

It really is as simple as the other guy's high card was a 5 and OPs was a 6, and 6 is bigger than 5

Got it thanks, I don't play hi-lo so I didn't know the correct answer either.

But my lowest card is ace or 1, 1 is lower than 2...

23 beats A4? On for example 567,5,5 board?

By your rationale KQ would beat AJ for high because the jack is lower than the queen

Why do the Raise / Call / Fold stripes have different heights at times in solvers?

Because you are wrong in what you feel the hand rankings are. It is A2, A3, 23. A5, 25, 35, A6, 26, 36, 56 etc. Every low hand here is 874xx. 23 is better than A5 as as the 3 is lower than the 5.

player a: Tc Ts As 8d

player b: Ah Ad 9h 2d

board: Ts 6s 2d Ac

odds calculator has this as 75% v 25% for top set v mid set + fd. Can someone please explain where the other 5% comes from? i have 18% for the flush outs and 2% for quads. What am I missing?

thanks

Get a new deck, player a has Ts and board has Ts.

thank you, sorry, fixed.

12/52 cards known

40 cards left

player a has 9 outs for spades and 1 out for quads:

10/40 = 25%

90% of poker players are not profitable, by estimation. 9% make a bit of money; and about 1% make big bucks.

Why isn't it a valid solution (with some common sense applied) to simply call other players bets, and never worry about raising yourself (again, common sense applies)?

If 90% of players are betting their money into the loss of profit zone; then shouldn't most calls be profitable (with common sense folds added in)?

I realize there is a lot that goes into each decision, and I don't want to downplay those decisions; but on the very surface; it appears that simply calling an opponents bet should be profitable over the long term, against 90% of players.

Against such players, it's not that calling isn't profitable, it's frequently that raising is even better

No. Raising is absolutely necessary.

Oh absolutely; I'm just saying; all else being equal; and with common sense applied; it would seem an absolute fish would do better by simply calling and folding than by including raise into their game. It appears +EV on the surface; but to be completely fair; it's only a theory.

For what? Necessary for what specifically?

The question isn't 'is raising profitable'...the question is; is calling +EV given the fact that 90% of players are going to raise in such a way that they lose money over the long term.

The only way I could see it not being +EV is with zero fold consideration; and there is also the possibility that the 90% lose money statistic isn't correct; but that's what I routinely see thrown around; and it's what chatGPT said was the estimation.

Good day everyone, I've got a couple of dumb questions. The first is reading through the FAQ and some of the top threads in this section I've heard people say that there is a "basic strategy" for micro no limit tournaments (I've been playing 25 cent sng's on pokerstars just to get some experience.) Is this sort of like Basic Strategy for Blackjack where if you play it you'll optimize your odds of winning?

The second question, regardless of the answer to the first, is can anyone recommend a good video or video series that can teach a new player all they need to know to play online tournaments as wisely as possible? I've tried searching youtube but all the ones I seem to find are either trying to sell you their software or course or use so much jargon and math it melts my brain.

Thanks for your time!

Just in case you don't mind reading books, here's a list that might be helpful to you:

https://www.pokernews.com/news/2017/...ooks-18297.htm

I seem to have the full bet rule confused. I was under the impression that in NLHE live game if a player opens on the flop for $13, then the next player throws out five $5 chips ($25) without announcing anything, it was just a call because it wasn’t the full amount required to be a raise? I was 100% certain of this until 2 days ago. Now I’m told if they make at least half the required amount it is intent to raise. That to me sounded like half bet rule which is what I thought they played in tournaments, but not live games.

I have been in different departments in the gaming industry for 10 years, but poker for at least 2 (albeit some 8 years ago). Was this rule different back then or have I had it wrong all this time and never been corrected?

could be room dependent, could be cash/donkament dependent