Aces in deck; never seen this analysis?

been curious about this, but never seen it written anywhere.

when you have a hand with a high number of players seeing the flop (relative to average for that table), does it not suggest that a few of the aces might be in the hands at the table??... therefore, much less likely that an Ace will hit. all the more reason NOT to play A8 and A7 and stuff like that.

two things i saw on weekend:

gus hansen in showdown with AJo. but two aces had been folded, so he only had one ace chance.

saw a tie between four hands online and they all had aces so there were no aces left in deck to hit the board.

i assume that alot of the various starting hand charts take this into account but it's never been mentioned. people always talk about outs, and correct for fact that an OUT might not win, but i was thinking when you have AKo, you often don't have 6 possible aces and kings to hit.

are there any articles on this phenomenon?? i'm sure people will pounce in and say obvious point, but i've never seen it referenced ever.

It's pretty hairy stuff. There is AFAIK no strong consensus on what good moves are with which hand where.

To make things more complicated, strongly multi-way hands make seeing the flop with weaker hands much more worthwhile because the pot odds are much better. An example that was mentioned here a while ago is that, heads up, 7-2 offsuit is actually stronger than 3-2 offsuit, but that 3-2 is stronger in multi-way action. So, with four other people in the pot, those pocket eights look a whole lot better, even without accounting for all the high cards that are probably out.

Never seen anything formally written up on it, but when I see an early raiser and a couple cold callers, I typically figure at least 1, if not 2, of the aces are in play. At lower levels anyway (3/6), people will cold call a lot of AXs or an ace with any broadway card.

[ QUOTE ]
Never seen anything formally written up on it, but when I see an early raiser and a couple cold callers, I typically figure at least 1, if not 2, of the aces are in play. At lower levels anyway (3/6), people will cold call a lot of AXs or an ace with any broadway card.

[/ QUOTE ]

yup, people playing any ace and playing it to the end has been my #1 money maker and something i almost never lose on (cause i will almost never even play A9o, consistent with miller's book). sometimes i walk into AA though.... but i think the Axo fixation is #1 fish characteristic.

do you mean that the eights look better because it's possible that the other players all have similar holdings and their outs are used up or they are in a dominated situation, and that there is a greater chance that they are not holding an 8? or do you mean that the 8s hold up for another reason?

[JoshuaD]

This is discussed in a couple of books (Cloutier comes to mind). The term most generally used for it is "the bunching effect".

The general concensus (Cloutier excluded) is that there is a little something to it, but not very much, and not really worth considering. There isn't a strong enough ratio of A hands to non-A hands for it to be a significant factor.

I don't even think about it, I'm playing 5/10 6m.

[trumpman84]

Your "outs" are part of a group of cards known as the unknown cards. If you need an ace or king to win the hand you have 6 outs, but most of the time you don't really have a full 6 outs because they've been dealt out to the other players or are in the burn pile. But, you can assume that over long run, the ratio of cards that help you and cards that don't help you that have been dealt out make it to where your chances of winning the hand are the same.

to put it somewhat matematically...

You need to hit an Ace or King to win and (let's pretend we're on the turn), there are 6 known cards (2 in your hand, 4 on the board) none of which are an ace or king, so you need to hit one of 6 outs to win on the river. 6 outs/ 50 unknown cards = 12% chance to win

Let's say that we somehow knew what the other 9 players had held and thrown away (or still have) and that 1 ace is gone and 1 king is gone so you only have 4 outs, but now there are only 32 unknown cards. 4 outs /32 unknown = 12.5%

So, you can see, even though 2 of your cards were held by otehr players and already dead, you still have about the same chance of winning.

trumpman and others, thanks for the responses, and that makes sense that the ratios don't change that much.

although at table where 4-5 see flop on average, you have to wonder when 7-8 see the flop.... another reason suited connectors are good in those situations as they have a great uniqueness to them.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
do you mean that the eights look better because it's possible that the other players all have similar holdings and their outs are used up or they are in a dominated situation, and that there is a greater chance that they are not holding an 8? or do you mean that the 8s hold up for another reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

The more people in the pot, the less 88 (or any hand) will hold up, of course. But you'll turn a much higher profit with 88 (or any other small/mid pocket pair) when you have many opponents, even though you're winning fewer pots. This is because - assuming you're playing correctly - you'll win a whole lot more on your occasional wins with 88 than you lose in your many losses. Do you see why?

[johnc]

One of Doyle's favorite hands is 65 because he feels that it's str8 possiblities aren't likely to overlap most of your opponents, assuming they're playing typical high card hands. Also he argues that it would be harder for an opponent to put you on a hand if the boards hits you, even for a gutshot. Given the above discussion, it does make sense (of course this assumes one's postflop skills and reading ability needs either on or close to his level to make these types of hands profitable - I'm not even remotely close!).

yea, 88s don't hold up often but when they do you'll win enough to justify taking those chances. but i was wondering if he meant he's pretty sure that he's in a battle against high cards which would mean there are lower cards and the remaining 8s in the deck. i don't recall ever seeing anyone change what their pot odds would be if they figured someone folded one of their needed cards, but i think it is a situation that could come up. seems crazy, eh?

[Moneyline]

This is something that comes up a lot in omaha high/low. Since a very large percentage of good starting hands contain an ace, you need to be more careful with otherwise decent hands like 23xx if a few solid players have already entered the pot. In hold 'em, I don't think it's nearly important, because a higher percentage of the hands that are playable do not contain an ace.

[ QUOTE ]
In hold 'em, I don't think it's nearly important, because a higher percentage of the hands that are playable do not contain an ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a distinction between playable hands and hands played, depending on the limit. But having said that, the increased random nature of hands in lower limits will probably discount any increase in Ax hands played.

[ QUOTE ]
to put it somewhat matematically...

You need to hit an Ace or King to win and (let's pretend we're on the turn), there are 6 known cards (2 in your hand, 4 on the board) none of which are an ace or king, so you need to hit one of 6 outs to win on the river. 6 outs/ 50 unknown cards = 12% chance to win

Let's say that we somehow knew what the other 9 players had held and thrown away (or still have) and that 1 ace is gone and 1 king is gone so you only have 4 outs, but now there are only 32 unknown cards. 4 outs /32 unknown = 12.5%

So, you can see, even though 2 of your cards were held by otehr players and already dead, you still have about the same chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are multiple errors here.

First, it's not 6/50 unknown, it's 6/46. 52 - the 2 in your hand - the 4 on the board that you can see. That makes it ~13%.

Secondly, you can't show one example of the relationship between normal calculation of outs and knowing other players' cards and say the percentages are the same.. you used the example of one ace and one king being gone, and that made it the same percentage (you said 4/32, which should be 4/28). What happens if you know there's only one king and one ace remaining after knowing the other nine players' cards?

2 outs/28 cards = ~7% chance.

The percentages were only similar in the specific example you gave.


To the OP, I agree with something brought up earlier in the thread, I will play 67s and the like when a lot of people have entered the pot, because I know more than likely a lot of As and Ks are in the other players' hands.. especially at low limits.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

In his excellent poker tome The Making of a Poker Player, Matt Matros cites "the bunching factor" as a reason why you should open-raise with more hands in a short-handed game compared to when you are sitting an equal number of seats from the button in a full ring game when it is folded to you.

sorry, forgot whose post it was... but excellent point about shorthanded play and not having to worry about bunching effect (or i guess negative bunching) ... and in general i am curious about abdul (and others) assertion that shorthanded is similar to everyone folding in full table except for card distribution that came. it strikes me there might be other differences too.

[poincaraux]

[ QUOTE ]
This is something that comes up a lot in omaha high/low. Since a very large percentage of good starting hands contain an ace, you need to be more careful with otherwise decent hands like 23xx if a few solid players have already entered the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to say something similar. The only thing I might add is that I think this is much more important in limit O/8 .. I think 23xx becomes much more playable in pot-limit.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, forgot whose post it was... but excellent point about shorthanded play and not having to worry about bunching effect (or i guess negative bunching) ... and in general i am curious about abdul (and others) assertion that shorthanded is similar to everyone folding in full table except for card distribution that came. it strikes me there might be other differences too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that Sklansky said you have to defend your blinds more often, not because people are raising with worse hands, but because you hit the blinds more often and have more equity tied up. So, that is another difference.

prose, good post...

i am waiting for someone to write a definitive shorthanded article or book... i've read tons of stuff but nothing has satisfied completely.... one thing i have found shorthanded is that people wake up to your aggressiveness pretty fast and then you don't win big pots so rake becomes an issue... need a big bankroll for shorthanded too.

would love to see a shorthanded starting hand chart. although some will say it's pointless, but i think i want to see a basic template based on average conditions (wilson software 5 player advisor is pretty good, and the version i have doesn't adjust to tightness/looseness of table (it is adjusted for # of players).