This isn't necessarily true, because equities run so close in O8 except at the very top and very bottom. A 50th percentile hand will run maybe 3% better than a 90th %ile hand against a given range heads-up.

So if the 90th %ile hand is break-even, the 50th %ile hand will be almost imperceptibly profitable.

And if a hand in the BB is around break-even, you almost certainly want to defend rather than fold, because it discourages people from trying to steal against you in the future (unless the rake is a major issue). Also, winning with trash in the blinds tends to put opponents on tilt and contribute to giving you a "lucky" image, both of which are beneficial.

But I did want to avoid disagreements regarding what equity we need to continue and just provide a list of say 100 random flops and then we can examine equity unrealization with some specifity

It would also be in general a good learning process in talking about that and looking at equities and scoop %s when we continue

since for some reason that escapes me now i got involved in this thread, I'm going to add some clarity amongst so much gibberish posted by OP
like post #71

A9(T7) has 43.6% avg. pot equity hu vs. 25%6h

QJT4 unsuited has 34.5% avg. pot equity vs. 25%6h

(874)3 has 40.2% avg. pot equity hu vs. 25%6h
(see post #5 for the 3 specific hands and an opponent's range; A9(T7), QJT4o, (874)3 and 25%6h)

these equity figures assume that both hands reach showdown.

when the avg.pot equity assumes showdown the equity has typically been refered to as 'hot/cold equity', 'preflop equity' and often in the context of equity realization 'raw equity'.

equity realization attempts to factor for post-flop variables to attempt to provide a 'better' equity figure then the 'raw equity' to use in determining whether it is profitable to continue with(not fold) a hand.

if a79T can 'realize' 53% of its raw equity(43.6%) then it's 'equity realization' is 23.1% avg. pot equity.

qtj4 must 'realize' 67% of its raw equity(34.5%) in order to achieve an 'equity realization' of 23.1%.

8743must 'realize' 55% of its raw equity(41.95%) in order to achieve an 'equity realization' of 23.1%.

(consequently A79T can afford to 'unrealize' 47% of its raw equity whereas QJT4 can only afford to'unrealize 33%' of its raw equity and 8743 can only afford to 'unrealize 45% of its raw equity, if it wants to achieve the same 'realized equity figure of 23.1%).


given the above, as a framework on which to discuss what OP wished to accomplish, then if achieving 'realized equity' of >23% for any given hand defending its bb vs a single 25%6h opening range leads to profitability, then OP wished to determine each hand's 'realized equity' or each hand's 'equity realization factor'(53%,57.5% or 66% in the examples above).
(see post #43 for the 23% figure)
(however in my opinion, although >23% is the correct figure for the immediate situation, profitably seeing a flop, its probably not the correct figure in the context of showdown)

there are multiple factors to consider in determining a hand's 'realized equity' or the 'equity realization factor'. generally agreed upon factors include position, stakes, skill, and hand playabilty.

as position is agreed upon here to be OOP, and stakes agreed upon here to be LIMIT, and skill a rather unique variable, OP was exploring playability.


The flop's interaction with the hand and the opponent's range factors strongly into 'playability'.

so data pertaining to each hands interaction with the flop was of concern to OP.

what data he was actually asking for and what data may actually be useful are just 2 questions i also don't have the answer to.

but a rudimentary amount of data might be for the (874)3

hand vs. 25%6h	when flop equity	frequency	avg.shwdn equity	the equity u 'realize when u go to showdown
8x7x4x3y	n/a	100%	~42%	~42% w/100% of 8743
8x7x4x3y	>=65%	12.1%	~76%	~9.2% when 8743 flops >=65%equity
8x7x4x3y	>=50% <65%	~21.1%	57%	~11.8% when 8743 flops >=50%<65%equity
8x7x4x3y	>=35% <50%	~29.5%	43%	~12.7% when 8743 flops >=35%<50%equity
8x7x4x3y	<35%	37.35%	~22%	~8.2% when 8743 flops <35%equity

we can see the 'raw equity' preflop was ~42%, however if our plan was to see the flop, fold all hands that were determined to have <35% flop equity and go to showdown with all hands determined to have >=35% flop equity our 'equity realization' would be ~33.7%

using the data from the tables in post #39

for 4TJQo
we can see the 'raw equity' preflop was ~35%, however if our plan was to see the flop, fold all hands that were determined to have <35% flop equity and go to showdown with all hands determined to have >=35% flop equity our 'equity realization' would be ~24.5%

for A9(7T)
we can see the 'raw equity' preflop was ~44%, however if our plan was to see the flop, fold all hands that were determined to have <35% flop equity and go to showdown with all hands determined to have >=35% flop equity our 'equity realization' would be ~35.3%

under this metric, we can see that QJT4unsuited is rather different from the 2 other hands.
consequently under this metric, if we were to suppose our that our 'equity realization' needed to be >30% for defending to be profitable than either QTJ40 isn't profitable to defend, our we must think it possible to 'realize equity' with some hands that have <35% flop equity.

here's some data with regard to when QJT4o vs.25%6h flops <35% equity.

Results of a 24126 trials simulation

handtype	how often 'Ay7x9zTx' has handtype on flop	how often 'Ay7x9zTx' would scoop at shwdn	how often '25%6h' would scoop at shwdn
-- all --	100%	10.9%	75.3%
strflush	0	0	0
quads	0	0	0
fullhouse	0	0	0
flush	0	0	0
sraight	.08
straight w/fd	0	0	0
straight w/o fd	.08	.01	.06
trips	.26
trips w/fd	0	0	0
trips w/o fd	.26	.06	.18
top 2pair	.74
top 2pair w/o either draw	.64	.12	.44
top 2pair w/fd	0	0	0
top 2pair w/strd	.1	.01	.08
top 2pair w/both draws	0	0	0
top&btm 2pair	.59
top&btm 2pair w/o either draw	.57	.11	.36
top&btm 2pair w/fd	0	0	0
top&btm 2pair w/strd	.02	0	.02
top&btm 2pair w/both draws	0	0	0
btm 2pair	.99
btm 2pair w/o either draw	.68	.12	.53
btm 2pair w/fd	0	0	0
btm 2pair w/strd	.31	.05	.24
btm 2pair w/both draws	0	0	0
top pair	11.3
top pair w/o either draw	10.69	1.72	7.37
top pair w/fd	0	0	0
top pair w/strd	.61	.13	.47
top pair w/both draws	0	0	0
2nd pair	15
2nd pair w/o either draw	12.73	1.4	9.07
2nd pair w/fd	0	0	0
2nd pair w/strd	2.27	.57	1.6
2nd pair w/both draws	0	0	0
btm pair	7.93
btm pair w/o either draw	7.46	.58	5.24
btm pair w/fd	0	0	0
btm pair w/strd	.47	.12	.31
btm pair w/both draws	0	0	0
nothing	63.11
nothing w/o either draw	56.11	4.34	45.66
nothing w/fd	0	0	0
nothing w/strd	7.0	1.51	4.6
nothing w/both draws	0	0	0

can you find enough equity here?

i will end this post with Good luck, but i certainly won't be PMing you, OP.

Thanks ngt, I’ll sift through this later and see if there is anything useful

Ok I’ll stop looking for PMs from you! Lol

But seriously though, if post 71 offends think you need to re-examine why you are here

Thanks also to Munga and Nick but taking it offline

the table at the end of post #78 has incorrect headers.

in post#78 the headers read " 'Ay7x9zTx' " for the 2nd and 3rd columns of data.
it should read 'QyJxTz4w' .
the data posted is from a simulation of QyJxTz4w vs 25%6h when QyJxTz4w has <35% flop equity.

i should have also included that for a straight draw (strd) i used having >=7 outs to a straight.
consequently 'w/o either draw' includes hands with 0-6 straight outs (but obviously not a flush draw).




i created the table for 'Ay7x9zTx' and have that data, (i didn't post it) and obviously I copied the table and substituted new data but forgot to substitute the new hand in the header.
sorry.

Had a feeling the thread was gonna go this way

lol I did too

I had originally wanted to keep them in the dark as to what I wanted to examine to get unskewed feedback. People take it as a personal challenge when you don't automatically go with the flow.

Problem seems to be that way when one high profile player has some run good and says something like 95% of hands are defendable then it just gets repeated in perpetuity as undisputable fact.

Erroneous concepts in other games have been erased because they are much easier to prove or disprove. Have recently cleaned up some items with 27TD myself.

However, this is different as there are many factors involved and ripe for someone to just try and end it with "play better".

Now I'm always open to keeping an open mind but I've watched Jake Abdalla's videos where he suggests defending with about anything. As a backup he says we are getting 3 to 1 and will under realize by at most 20%. That is not a good assessment of the situation at all which makes me skeptical

But carry on gents

Yeah I also think many players defend much too wide in flo8. But I only play it in horse and 8 game but I guess same same....

Interestingly or not I noticed a while back in pl and nl that regs are defending super wide which has made me and I guess others open slightly larger size. At least in big bet you can made the overly wide defending error amplified by doing this.

Yeah man, anyhow what I'm doing now is I'm working with some pros who play higher limit mixed games. I think the way to go about this is to keep it subjective in regards to using 100 random flops for each of the hands and calc'ing results based upon what they continue on.

I have a theorem that bad Ace-Low and non ace low hands may be bad defends. For example, your scoop % may be lower. The object of the game is to scoop, that doesn't go out the window when heads-up, in fact it is even more important because if you are not often scooping then you are just trying to get your money back


Thus I feel the BB defenders are:

1) Under estimating unrealization

2) Focusing entirely on equity and not scoop share

3) Applying the wrong threshold for how much they need to realize, it is not 25%

So I'm looking forward to it