I just noticed that scooping %s for QJT4 are higher than the other hand significantly when you continue

This could be the missing piece that ties these hands together and paints a more complete and accurate story

Why is it a problem to see it? There is a rank button

http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...9h7c&s=generic


Omaha Hi/Lo Hand Ranking (unweighted)
Rankings for AT97
Ranking Description Average Best Worst
10H 10-handed iterative 43.77 23.0 71.0
3H 3-handed iterative 30.14 21.0 44.0
6H 6-handed iterative 39.19 23.0 63.0
VR vs. random hand 26.73 17.0 35.0

Rankings for AsTh9d7c
Ranking Description Average Best Worst
10H 10-handed iterative 71.0 71.0 71.0
3H 3-handed iterative 44.0 44.0 44.0
6H 6-handed iterative 63.0 63.0 63.0
VR vs. random hand 35.0 35.0 35.0

Rankings for AsTs9h7h
Ranking Description Average Best Worst
10H 10-handed iterative 26.0 26.0 26.0
3H 3-handed iterative 22.0 22.0 22.0
6H 6-handed iterative 23.0 23.0 23.0
VR vs. random hand 17.0 17.0 17.0

Rankings for AsTs9h7c
Ranking Description Average Best Worst
10H 10-handed iterative 34.0 34.0 34.0
3H 3-handed iterative 28.0 28.0 28.0
6H 6-handed iterative 33.0 33.0 33.0
VR vs. random hand 26.0 26.0 26.0

And for asked A9(T7)

Rankings for AsTd9c7d
Ranking Description Average Best Worst
10H 10-handed iterative 49.0 49.0 49.0
3H ...3-handed iterative 30.0 30.0 30.0
6H ...6-handed iterative 42.0 42.0 42.0
VR .....vs. random hand 28.0 28.0 28.0

(KJ)(Q4) is definitely not a top 50% hand. I think you are underestimating just how poorly any three-high/one-low hand does heads-up in O8.

(KJ)(Q4) has only 45.5% equity against a random hand, and 38.5% equity against a top 20% hand.

In contrast, the AT97 hand has 53% equity against a random hand, and 43% against a top 20% hand.

I think what you might be missing is that in a heads-up O8 hand, having any possibility to make an emergency low adds enormously to your equity. Obviously AT97 can make this and KQJ4 cannot. This is much less important in multi-way pots.

Ok, but as I think we are seeing (KJ)(Q4) may be a much better call than AT97 due to average equity on flops we continue and scoop % ratio if I can ever train ngt to deliver lol

Nah, you’re not getting the point, OP. Nick laid it out plainly as you will get.

huh? get back to the sidelines, this is not a battle to prove someone is right or wrong

I'm bringing legit new fresh ways of looking at something to the table. There is much more to examine other than simply looking at average equity.


You should not be troubled and upset when your pre set assumptions are questioned. It should be a point of excitement if your game gets refined and improved


We can stop this and I'll go away and everyone can go back to the impact of rake on $4/8 threads, should we do that?

Thanks, thought it was some paid piece


Not sure what I'm looking at from the above, but from looking into it I found a list generated from equity vs a random hand..think that will help me

Rankings for AsTd9c7d
Ranking Description Average Best Worst
10H 10-handed iterative 49.0 49.0 49.0
3H ...3-handed iterative 30.0 30.0 30.0
6H ...6-handed iterative 42.0 42.0 42.0
VR .....vs. random hand 28.0 28.0 28.0

Rankings for KsQcJs4c
Ranking Description Average Best Worst
10H 10-handed iterative 59.0 59.0 59.0
3H 3-handed iterative 78.0 78.0 78.0
6H 6-handed iterative 63.0 63.0 63.0
VR vs. random hand 84.0 84.0 84.0

What this is showing you is that the A9(T7) hand is much better heads-up (28th %ile) than full-ring (49%). Having a bare Ace and emergency low potential are both traits of this hand that are very valuable heads-up but not very useful multi-way.

The (KJ)(Q4) hand is the opposite, much better full-ring (59%) than heads-up (84%). But note that it is still worse than A9(T7) under all scenarios.

I do think 84th %ile slightly undersells the (KJ)(Q4) heads-up as I think it will realize its equity better and be a bit easier to play than a lot of hands that are slightly better ranked.

They are both easy BB defenses heads-up (while I would regard QJT4r a marginal defense), but I still certainly wouldn't consider the (KJ)(Q4) a better hand.

Ok thanks. Traveling today but can’t wait to examine things further. Some initial thoughts swirling around in my head is that in split pot games equity doesn’t always paint the same picture as in one winner games. Ratio of scoop %s of one hand vs another is a more accurate indicator. That’s why Sklansky focused on it in his chapter on Stud no qualifier.

But the (KQ)(J4) is severely short changed both by equity vs simulations and equity vs scoop %.

With ace and a bad low card while we do have emergency low ours which adds equity we may have few scoops when we pair ace vs a reasonably strong range

So it looks like yes, it looks like 4JQKss has a small scoop advantage over 25%6h where A79Ts does not. But the former folds on significantly more flops. FWIW.


ProPokerTools Odds Oracle Results (2.3 Professional)
Omaha Hi/Lo, Generic syntax
PLAYER_1 4cJsQcKs
PLAYER_2 25%6h
15017 trials (randomized)

How often do(es)
PLAYER_1 have hand vs. range equity of at least 35% on the flop
54.0254% (8113)

How often do(es)
( PLAYER_1 have hand vs. range equity of at least 35% on the flop AND PLAYER_1 scoop)
22.6543% (3402)

How often do(es)
( PLAYER_1 have hand vs. range equity of at least 35% on the flop AND PLAYER_2 scoop)
19.0384% (2859)




ProPokerTools Odds Oracle Results (2.3 Professional)
Omaha Hi/Lo, Generic syntax
PLAYER_1 As7d9cTd
PLAYER_2 25%6h
14999 trials (randomized)

How often do(es)
( PLAYER_1 have hand vs. range equity of at least 35% on the flop)
67.8512% (10177)

How often do(es)
( PLAYER_1 have hand vs. range equity of at least 35% on the flop AND PLAYER_1 scoop)
22.9949% (3449)

How often do(es)
( PLAYER_1 have hand vs. range equity of at least 35% on the flop AND PLAYER_2 scoop)
21.9081% (3286)

Good stuff Munga thanks

On paper this was supposed to be a rout with a 28th ranked hand vs an 85

While the A7 hand appears to get the nod the results may be closer than it even appears with numbers shown.

Larger scoop % means a lot since it is not twice as good to scoop, it is 4 times ago

4 times better I meant

Wait, I think this shows a clear victory for (KJ)(Q4)

The fact that it has to fold on more flops is baked into the results. It's folding more on flop but is in better shape when it does continues, in other words easier to play

Am I possibly misinterpreting something?

Oh wait, sorry long day, it's probably not baked in

I should learn how to do this but if we see the following we can probably get a clear answer

1) Equity and Scoop %s for all trials with nothing excluded

2) Equity and Scoop %s where equity is LESS than 35% (and % of the time this occurs)

I can then do a carve out similar to what I did with ngt's numbers


I think for any hand to be playable as a call from BB it should demonstrate an average 35% equity after assuming 0% equities for the trials where we are folding. Let's discuss this aspect as I think it's the most important, more important that comparing hand vs hand like death cage matches. It could possibly be lower if the scoop % is relatively high though

I guess what I'm getting at is I don't think we can call with a piece o'chit, because we have 36% "hot/cold" and are getting 3 to 1 on our money preflop.

Extrapolating from the numbers Munga posted, if you assume 0 equity in all cases where you flop <35% equity, the AT97 hand has 34.5% equity and the KQJ4 hand has 28.9%. (Note that I am assuming that the AT97 hand has 50% equity in all split pots, which doesn't exactly account for times when it wins 1/4 or 3/4, but these should mostly cancel each other out.)

But I really don't know why you think this is the most important metric, or where the 35% threshold comes from.

Quite simply the 35% threshold comes from the effective odds of calling both preflop and the flop. I would not consider it the most important metric, but one we can examine with some but not too much work.

Some just analyze it as "we have 44% against a 25%h and we are getting 3 to 1, clear call...we're going to realize it"


If the 34.5% equity is our average after incorporating the hands that we would fold we have already under realized by 22% and we still have flop to turn and turn to river. That's somewhat substantial. Abdalla handwaves it and says maybe we would under realize by around 20% total when defending super light from BB.


Now the reason why earlier in the thread I wanted input into who would continue on what flops I wanted to see an actual under realization amount as it would play out in reality.

Or even more simply put, if we don't have at least an average of greater than 35% equity from hands where we have greater than 35% equity then adding on hands with less than 35% equity will not help


Some hands may do better than presented due to implied odds or looking at scoop %s but A9(T7) is not one of those hands. It probably has more reverse odds than implied.


From what I see here it looks like this hand is a marginal defend at best (probably losing though) and the unsuited version is losing for sure.

For 30 years, holding an Ace with a low card has meant “five cards are better than four”.

Nothing has changed.

get back to the bench although you contribute the same amount either way

Nothing

OK, you've made up some arbitrary metric to decide what hands to defend. If you've already decided that that's what's important despite what everyone else is telling you, go ahead and use.

Under that metric, A9(T7) is indeed marginal. But (KJ)(Q4) is still much worse.

The fact is that A9(T7) has 44% equity against a top 25% range. I would tend to agree that this is a somewhat poor implied odds hand. But when you are getting 3.5-to-1, 44% equity is waaaaay to much to fold heads-up in a limit game (where there is a pretty low ceiling on implied odds).

If you are concerned about not realizing a large portion of this 44% equity, you should work on trying to realize more of your equity, not just giving up on uneasy post-flop spots.

Ok not arbitrary at all in fact I did not even first present the 35%. It was Munga who may have taken it from Newall who is a great poker mind.

But the math here is clear. When you realize more equity your average equity is going way down and clearly you are taking the worst of it. This is according to the rankings a highly ranked hand, the issue should be clear cut yet it is not.

So instead of debating anything of real substance you fall back on “play better”.

I hoped for better. If you are right that 95% is profitable as a defend it should be more clear from math that we are good yet I don’t think we see that. Imagine what we would see with worse hands?

Oh and I’m not personally invested in high hands like KQJ4. I’m not here to prove myself right or wrong, rather the goal is to brainstorm, look at stuff, and then try to come to conclusions

Then to address your 44% is waaay too much equity there’s a reason why A97T is ranked much higher on lists generated by equity vs a single hand than ones based upon simulations of game play.

Straight up, I’m looking for people I can work with... I have little patience for people who just want to argue their positions no matter what like it's a personal attack or even worse nuthuggers of forum members

If anyone wants to work together PM me, I can trade some good material I've worked on for games like 2-7 TD, NL ante only shortdeck, Badugi, and Drawmaha. Time to take it offline

The whole "calculate your equity after assuming you immediately fold every flop with less than 35% equity" thing seems misguided for several reasons.

Even assuming that 35% is the threshhold at which you should be calling, this idea seems to also assume that your opponent is always playing aggressively and you are always playing passively. This is what I mean by working to realize more of your equity.

Some of the time you get a low equity flop, your opponent won't c-bet and you might pick up significant equity on the turn. (If your opponent does c-bet 100%, you can exploit this in other ways.). Other times, you can turn a marginal fold into a bluff.

And on occasions where you do flop well, in many cases you should be playing aggressively, and thus win more than your equity. You aren't the only player in the hand who will sometimes be forced to fold away a potential winner.

I get you and I feel I addressed some of this in my first post as well as in subsequent posts

My reply to this is that if 95% of our range is truly profitable as a defend then it stands to reason that a hand ranking in the 28-65% range (depending on how the list was generated) should exhibit more of a clear indication to continue then what we see here.


Remember, we are out of position so it's much easier for our opponent to play better than us.


So two questions are in play here


1) How do we rank hands? I think it's likely A9(T7) is closer to 65% then it is to 28% although 65% does sound low


2) How many hands can we defend? This could be a tedious process of determining the breakoff for various hand types and then summing it all up. In this effort I think we may have come across the bottom range of Ace-Low-Two High hand type. We've had some piling on of each other in here but progress may have been made.