Title says it all.

If no pair is drawn, A2 wins the bet.
Why is the win rate of A2 so much lower?

There is only one straight using A2.

Also, if the 2 hits a pair on the flop, K AND Q can still outdraw. If a K hits the flop, only an Ace saves you.

A2o is like being dealt one card.

A2 is dominated by 22+ and A3o+ (though lots of draws with A3-A6)

KQ is only dominated by QQ+ AQ+

KQ also dominates some hands like QJ and KJ. A2 isn't dominating anything.

KQ is the better hand and has a better playability. You can open raise KQ all-in earlier with a short stack than you can open raise A2 all-in with a short stack because A2 does worse vs. a range of potential calls than the KQ. Late, Ax can prefer to go all-in because of the playability factor.

Depends on your definition of “better”. A2 is a solid favorite over KQ preflop all-in.

KQ is aesthetically more pleasing though, going with broader definitions of better.

KQ can make top pair strong kicker twice.
A2 can't.

Imagine thinking 92o is better than 87s because you focus on inane technicalities like this. There's a reason we can open KQo from any position but A2o isn't a profitable open until btn.

Yet there is no denying that A2o is a 58% favorite if all in PF against KQo...... madlex DID say AIPF.

Playability is a different beast.

PFAI has an entirely different ranking order of hands than a ranking of bet/raise/call hands by position. So "better" is very situational.

He did say aipf, yes, it's just not insightful at all.

That was exactly my point. And in a lot of shortstacked situations, they are essentially the same hand. I did not contest that KQo has a significantly higher playability in the vast majority of postflop spots.

FWIW, I wouldn’t consider KQo a good hand to raise from UTG in a 10 or 9-handed game, but apparently others disagree.

((reply to Duncelanas))

Except.... we don't have much to go on from OP. Is this a tournament setting with 20bb stacks where AIPF is common? Is it a cash game with all the players 110bb+ except the A2o guy who pushes 28bb? Is it OP's database (I suspect not but...)?

lex stated correctly that is a situation where you are all in PF, A2o is a favorite over KQo. It is not an "inane technicality" or "not insightful". It is a specific situation in poker that is not rare.

edit: and as I and others have stated..... KQo has much better "playability" than A2o if the hand does not go AIPF. Hit your Ace on the flop...there is a good chance that someone else has a better kicker and (particularly as you are learning how to fold) you will lose a lot of money defending TPWK. Hit the K or Q...and at least your kicker has a fighting chance.

6Max it'll play well in every position. Full ring....not so much in my mind either.

Incidentally, in a tournament setting with shallow stacks it'll still be better to have KQo than A2o the vast majority of the time. I agree with you here that we could have some discussions about why KQo is better than A2o in a variety of situations, and I agree with you that OP wasn't very specific here, but I definitely don't think "allin equity of 2 hands against each other directly" is at all a relevant point to consider.

What, could OP specifically be referencing times when villain exposes his holecards preflop and jams exactly KQo? Well clearly A2o is better in that case! Amazing!

It's not rare, but it's something that literally anyone who has played poker more than once or twice will obviously know. So it's absolutely not contributing anything useful unless this guy has never played poker before in his life. I absolutely think that qualifies as "not insightful" at the very least.

Yeah, 100% this is the major reason and I agree with the others who have posted it in thread, which is why I only specifically took issue with madlex's post here.

And ok, it might be the case that UTG or UTG1 in a ring game KQo isn't an open and is marginally -ev (note that opening A2o in these spots is literally burning money, while opening KQo is likely a minor mistake), but KQo is a much better hand than A2o in an extremely wide array of decisions, including most of the ones where we're deciding to call an openjam or jam over an opponent when relatively shallow.

The real question is KQo vs A2s.

Thanks for all the reactions.

I meant an overall measure, why does it win Pre-flop 58%, but is KQ better. I did not thought trough that KQ is a hand what is better playable.

I would define the general case of "better" as which hand I would rather be dealt in a ring game or when I still have a decent stack in a tourney. And KQ is by far the favorite in those scenarios. I fold A2 a lot preflop, but not KQ so much.

KQ is a more playable (and indeed profitable) hand in cashgames, because it retains its equity across multiple streets and is less likely to be dominated when it makes top pair.
In case you haven't noticed, the biggest pots are won with strong hands like straights, top two pairs, or trips with a good kicker, not top pair no kicker. (It's actually very hard to win a big pot with A2o, since when it makes the nuts on very rare occasions, it's almost impossible for your opponent to have the 2nd nuts to pay you off with. More commonly with A2o, you're the one paying off someone else.)

FWIW, I think KQo is closer in value to A5s. A2s is significantly worse than both those hands in most circumstances. (Note that Snowie routinely opens KQo - and even JTs - UTG, but A2s is a marginal/occasional open. A2s is kind of surplus to requirements when there are so many Ax hands already in your range.)

Let's say you're in a preflop all-in situation with 15-ish BB left:

In this case a much larger stack will call you with any ace or any pair but rarely with a K-rag or Q-rag type of hand. Let's say he calls with:
22+, QTo+, K9o+, A2o+

Equilab says:
A2o against 22+, QTo+, K9o+, A2o+ = 40.21%
KQo against 22+, QTo+, K9o+, A2o+ = 46.95%

So in a tournament push/fold situation it really does make a difference what kinds of cards you're expected to get called by.

---

Why is the win rate of A2 generally lower? As others have said: playability.
If an ace hits the flop you're in a LOT of trouble. If someone bets you'll be in kicker trouble and will mostly have to fold to a second bet. Are you going to call two or three bets on a pair of aces with no kicker?
A2o cannot bet profitably multiple streets because what are you gonna get called by on an ace high flop/turn? Only stuff that beats you (i.e. a better ace or better)

KQ is almost never in kicker trouble if the flop comes king-high (or queen-high) and can withstand a lot more pressure (and even bet profitably for value against a weaker hand like KJ, KT, QJ, QT).

What kind of stakes are these? If someone calls off 15BB with K9o I make a not of calling light and possibly mark them as a maniac depending on stats. Only exception is BvB.

People do overvalue any ace so they will call off 15BB with A2o even though they shouldn't (esp. if not closing the action).

Sorry...Didn't qualify that I was talking about a tournament situation, there (where stakes don't matter).

Push/fold tables have you pushing A2o from the SB at 15BB. Many will get frustrated at that stack size and push such cards even sooner (or in an earlier position). For a big stack late in the tournament it's tempting to take a shot at knocking out a player (even knowing he's an underdog) when there's a pay jump involved.

But if we remove the Qx and Kx combos from the caller the relative situation doesn't change:
A2o against 22+, A2o+ = 33.36%
KQo against 22+, A2o+ = 40.20%

KQ is still 6% better than A2o against the callers range.

Addendum for the playability: If we do make our straight with A2o playing ring game/regular size stacks we only have the dog end of the straight and will get stacked against someone playing 67s. That can't happen if we make our straight with KQo (assuming there are not 4 cards to a straight out there)

After seeing all the answers, I think the main point comes back to the following (let's stick to all-in PF):

- Indeed, A2o is a favourite against KQo.
- When making a decision in poker, we are not playing against a "hand" but against a "range" (think, for contrast of a NLHE variant where players were forced to show their hole cards)
- KQo performs better against most reasonable villain's ranges (see posts from antialias)

I love how people write this so often, and then continue to write a paragraph or two after.

In common lingo, KQ has better "playability". Of course there is math behind this. Making a pair of 2s is not worth much. Making a pair of aces is worth more, but if the other player is willing to put much money in, then he probably has your kicker beat at a minimum. On the other hand, KQ gives you twice as many chances to make top pair as A2 does, and in either case you'll have a good kicker. It's easy to win some money on a Q high flop or K high flop when your opponent has QJ or KJ, respectively. Many other kickers you can beat as well.

And of course A2 only makes one straight, while KQ makes two. Not only that, but the KQ straight will always be the nut straight, while A2 will always be the sucker end of it. (Assuming using both your cards of course.)

The thing to keep in mind in general is that when comparing two hands, those two hands rarely face off against each other, so comparing them heads up is really worthless. What you want to do is compare them against all the other hands you'll actually be playing against. Which hand is better, AKo or 22? 22. Which hand is better, 22 or 87s? 87s. Which hand is better, 87s, or AKo? AKo. Go figure.