Hello,Players1 Supposed that U decided to...

play both AKo and KQo in a loose-aggressive game(many players staying in pre-flop,on the flop , and on the turn; capping on pre-flop ,flop and turn).


Which hand would you rather have: AK or KQ? Why?

Thanks

Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

Sometimes, like in Paradise heads-up, against an opponent I am acting after at some point who obviously doesn't have an ace, or against an opponent who puts a certain kind of read on me, KQo gives me more outs.


There are just rare situations where I know I will be able to use the ace if it hits the same as if I am holding it when I am not. Plus, I have the queen out, if the board comes QT762. Like, if the ace hits I win, but if it doesn't and he figures me to be over-representing a high card, he may overbet his pair of tens.


Sometimes deception is worth more bets than cards?


eLROY

Deception is worth more than cards headsup. Yup, sometimes. No doubt.


But Larry's question was against a full field. I think your point is valid in its stated context, but not for the question at hand.

I would have thought AKo to be much better, but looking at http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Val_Sort.htm

KQo wins almost as often as AKo. Interesting. Even in terms of pot equity heads up (where I would think AK would have the biggest advantage), AKo is only slightly better.

I think your point is valid in its stated context, but not for the question at hand.


You should just be thankful he didn't start talking about his stock picks.

This is one area where the computer simulation results are flawed.


The simulation is unable to account for all the extra bets KQo is going to lose when it makes a second best hand- which is a common occurance.

Paraphrased from HEPFAP:


You'd rather stay in with KQ overcards than AK on a ragged flop because a bunch of people will play any Ace but not any king. Hitting your Ace might give some other moron a second pair, hitting your K or Q is less likely to do that.


Not saying KQ is more valuable, just showing one instance where you'd rather have it.


2ndGoat

That's not the point. AK is only dominated by 6 hands, while KQ is dominated by 36 hands, making it 6 times a likely to run into serious trouble (at a full table, about 1/4 of the times) - plus you're a still a dog over any ace.


Also, while AK and KQ dominate almost the same number of hands (132 vs. 120), the chance of your opponent playing a lesser ace is much higher than him playing a lesser queen.


Also AK has some showdown value, even when unimproved, and will always give you 6 outs against top-pair which often allows you to make a move for the pot when you missed the flop in heads-up situations.


All this together makes AK much more profitable than the small 4% difference in all-in pot-equity against a random hand suggests.


cu


Ignatius

have the option of mucking OR retaining your hand post-flop,but the rest of the field sees the flop ,turn,and river.

Will your recommendations still be the same??


Sitting Bull

Assuming that the table is correct, AK has only 10 hands that it must worry about. AQ has 17 hands that are better. This appears to be a big difference.

My mistake. But that makes it even worse. AK is the winner by an even lager margin. Why would you want a hand not having an ace? The small number of times you will get a king to nine straight does not seem justify it.