PDA

View Full Version : Question about hand ranges & equity (calling vs. raising, yada yada)


Bigwig
12-29-2005, 05:58 AM
Now, we know (at least, I hope we all know), that certain hands have different equity depending on whether or not you're facing a raise, or raising. As an example, KQs vs ATo from the button.

KQs has a higher equity value vs. two random hands than ATo.

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 47.0948 % 46.11% 00.99% { KQs }
Hand 2: 26.4828 % 25.50% 01.00% { random }
Hand 3: 26.4223 % 25.43% 01.00% { random }


equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 44.3021 % 42.98% 01.34% { ATo }
Hand 2: 27.8669 % 26.75% 01.12% { random }
Hand 3: 27.8310 % 26.71% 01.13% { random }


However, if you were the BB, facing a button raise from ~the top 30% of hands, ATo is a better holding than KQs.

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 46.0100 % 44.18% 01.83% { 55+, A2s+, K4s+, Q7s+, J8s+, T8s+, 98s, A5o+, K9o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }
Hand 2: 53.9900 % 52.16% 01.83% { KQs }


equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 43.5010 % 40.67% 02.83% { 55+, A2s+, K4s+, Q7s+, J8s+, T8s+, 98s, A5o+, K9o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }
Hand 2: 56.4990 % 53.67% 02.83% { ATo }


So, my question is: What would you rather be raising with from the button? Which hand is more valuable? Please elaborate.

curtains
12-29-2005, 06:47 AM
ATo but its really pretty irrelevant. Anytime you have like 15x BB or less, moving allin is +EV with both of these hands. However ATo is a bit stronger, as you will likely be called less frequently due to hogging the ace.

Also I have no idea why you calculated for two random hands. How often are both players going to call you! I find that calculation to be impractical and basically pointless.

Overall it just doesn't matter, these hands are both powerhouses from the button with high blinds in comparison to stack sizes.

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 06:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]

ATo but its really pretty irrelevant. Anytime you have like 15x BB or less, moving allin is +EV with both of these hands. However ATo is a bit stronger, as you will likely be called less frequently due to hogging the ace.

Also I have no idea why you calculated for two random hands. How often are both players going to call you! I find that calculation to be impractical and basically pointless.

Overall it just doesn't matter, these hands are both powerhouses from the button with high blinds in comparison to stack sizes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I didn't specify that this had to be an all-in situation. At least, I don't think I did.

And I'm not asking this question to specifically refer to the hands of ATo and KQs. This is more of a theoretical question. Should we assume that the better hand is the one that does best against the range that would call you? Or is the best hand the one that has the most preflop equity value? I lean toward the former in all-in situations, but I'm not sure about play before then.

el_dusto
12-29-2005, 06:56 AM
I was completely confounded by the OP... I had to read it aloud a couple of times before it sunk in. I had a reply formulated, but I deleted it and started over a couple of times because it didn't make sense. Luckily, curtains came in with a post that made me feel better, and not like I wasn't getting some deep element of poker theory.

If I had a choice of which hand to make the move with, I'd pick ATo just for the A, but the difference is so tiny that I would make the same move with KQs if I got that, instead. I think trying to determine which hand is more powerful is slicing this tomato just a little too thinly.

lorinda
12-29-2005, 06:58 AM
I suspect the AT is slightly more valuable because bad players will call raises with Ax and either have to fold to a continuation bet (assuming they are bad/good enough that they don't stop/go) or call when they are dominated, while when you have KQ, they can actually sometimes outflop you with their Ax and there is nothing you can do about it.

Edit: Also, KQs loses some of it's suited value here because you will not always get to the river.

Lori

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 06:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I was completely confounded by the OP... I had to read it aloud a couple of times before it sunk in. I had a reply formulated, but I deleted it and started over a couple of times because it didn't make sense. Luckily, curtains came in with a post that made me feel better, and not like I wasn't getting some deep element of poker theory.

If I had a choice of which hand to make the move with, I'd pick ATo just for the A, but the difference is so tiny that I would make the same move with KQs if I got that, instead. I think trying to determine which hand is more powerful is slicing this tomato just a little too thinly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, the question isn't whether or not you would do something differently. I wouldn't either. The question is which you'd rather have, and why. You say, "Cause of the A." Okay. I was hoping for more, but if that's it, so be it.

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 07:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I suspect the AT is slightly more valuable because bad players will call raises with Ax and either have to fold to a continuation bet (assuming they are bad/good enough that they don't stop/go) or call when they are dominated, while when you have KQ, they can actually sometimes outflop you with their Ax and there is nothing you can do about it.

Edit: Also, KQs loses some of it's value here because you will not always get to the river.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

So you believe the more powerful hand for yourself should be based on the likely range that you are facing if called, and not it's general equity value?

Everyone following me here?

lorinda
12-29-2005, 07:02 AM
The equity value assumes you see all five board cards. Some hands won't manage that, which is why small suited connectors usually stink so bad in SNGs and why LHE players sometimes have a hard time adjusting.

Lori

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 07:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The equity value assumes you see all five board cards. Some hands won't manage that, which is why small suited connectors usually stink so bad in SNGs and why LHE players sometimes have a hard time adjusting.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
I realize that. However, does this mean we should pay little attention to the difference between AKs and AKo? Same principle applies there.

lorinda
12-29-2005, 07:08 AM
I could happily play a SNG where I didn't know the suits of my cards until after the flop was dealt. I don't think it would impact me much at all, except possibly heads up.

I think that you have to play your opponent's range, because if you are not called, it does not matter what you are holding.
Of course, working out your opponent's range is the tricky bit /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Lori

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 07:11 AM
I dunno, Lori. The difference between being suited and unsuited is pretty important, even in NL. The difference is comparable to TT vs. 77 (not vs. each other, of course).

el_dusto
12-29-2005, 07:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Okay. I was hoping for more, but if that's it, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this: I play the 11s and 22s, and it is not surprising at all for people to call with random aces, especially late in the game. When Donkey McDonkerstien calls my bet with A9, I don't want to be chasing kings or queens.

It goes back to what Lori was saying about playing the other guy's range. There may be an argument to be made for betting with KQs vs. KQo, but a slight equity advantage over 1000 situations isn't really enough for me to give up my love affair with the bullet.

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 07:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay. I was hoping for more, but if that's it, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this: I play the 11s and 22s, and it is not surprising at all for people to call with random aces, especially late in the game. When Donkey McDonkerstien calls my bet with A9, I don't want to be chasing kings or queens.

It goes back to what Lori was saying about playing the other guy's range. There may be an argument to be made for betting with KQs vs. KQo, but a slight equity advantage over 1000 situations isn't really enough for me to give up my love affair with the bullet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, no no no. Dismissing slight equity edges is an enormous mistake. In fact, the difference between a losing player and a 20% ROI is identifying these slight equity edges. Literally. Over 1000 hands being suited will win you 40 extra hands. That's hardly too slight to ignore.

Incidentally, I just recalculated it, and KQs is better than ATo for a tight calling range. ATo is better for a looser calling range, since more weak A's will be involved.

12-29-2005, 08:08 AM
I think you guys underestimate the strength of suited hands in SnG's.

For example (checked with SNGPT) if there are 6 players left, you are in CO, 1000 chip game. You have 1000 chips and the players behind you cover you and are pretty tight. (the details are not important here), you can push: Push hands: 22+,A2+,K7o+,K2s+,Q8o+,Q4s+,J8o+,J6s+,T8o+,T6s+,98 o,96s+,86s+,76s,65s (45%)

The range includes 65s! That means 65s is better than K6o.

el_dusto
12-29-2005, 08:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, no no no. Dismissing slight equity edges is an enormous mistake. In fact, the difference between a losing player and a 20% ROI is identifying these slight equity edges. Literally. Over 1000 hands being suited will win you 40 extra hands. That's hardly too slight to ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Perhaps this knowledge will help make a difference between a 12 and 20 percent ROI. ^_^

So is it too early to ask which you prefer? It sounds to me like you're advocating the equity edge of KQ.

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 08:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think you guys underestimate the strength of suited hands in SnG's.

For example (checked with SNGPT) if there are 6 players left, you are in CO, 1000 chip game. You have 1000 chips and the players behind you cover you and are pretty tight. (the details are not important here), you can push: Push hands: 22+,A2+,K7o+,K2s+,Q8o+,Q4s+,J8o+,J6s+,T8o+,T6s+,98 o,96s+,86s+,76s,65s (45%)

The range includes 65s! That means 65s is better than K6o.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, Don. Always helps when I'm not the only one saying it.

lorinda
12-29-2005, 08:10 AM
The original poster specifically mentioned that we were talking about raises in general, not just pushes.

Lori

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 08:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, no no no. Dismissing slight equity edges is an enormous mistake. In fact, the difference between a losing player and a 20% ROI is identifying these slight equity edges. Literally. Over 1000 hands being suited will win you 40 extra hands. That's hardly too slight to ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Perhaps this knowledge will help make a difference between a 12 and 20 percent ROI. ^_^

So is it too early to ask which you prefer? It sounds to me like you're advocating the equity edge of KQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the range. Which, I think, depends on the position of your raise. Perhaps this one example is poor for SNGs. If I were to apply to a MTT, I think raising with KQs from MP (or pushing from there) would likely be better than ATo. However, from the button, ATo would be better. This is due to the fact that the calling ranges will be different.

Again, this one example shouldn't drastically affect play. It's more of a theoretical question, as I'm in the process of reevaluating my game.

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 08:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The original poster specifically mentioned that we were talking about raises in general, not just pushes.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I think his point is applicable.

el_dusto
12-29-2005, 08:20 AM
And so finally:

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on the range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 08:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And so finally:

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on the range.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I still think it's different than what most people would assume. It surprised me a bit. One hand is not necessarily better than the other.

12-29-2005, 10:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The range includes 65s! That means 65s is better than K6o.

[/ QUOTE ]
Better at what? I'll take my K6o against your 65s heads up.

I think OP's point is that opponents' calling ranges affect the value of a hand. A point against which it seems hard to argue. (I know you weren't disagreeing with OP.)

12-29-2005, 11:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This is more of a theoretical question. Should we assume that the better hand is the one that does best against the range that would call you?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're pushing, this seems like the right course.
[ QUOTE ]
Or is the best hand the one that has the most preflop equity value?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure it is of much value to base pre-flop equity on a hand's value against random hands (as you've doen in the opening post.
[ QUOTE ]
I lean toward the former in all-in situations, but I'm not sure about play before then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suited and connected hands gain value post-flop even when they have not been made. Flopping a four-flush or OESD is valuable. Holding a King and almost pairing when a Queen comes on the flop isn't quite the same.

12-29-2005, 11:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The range includes 65s! That means 65s is better than K6o.

[/ QUOTE ]
Better at what? I'll take my K6o against your 65s heads up.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, but my point is that suited connectors are surprisingly good compared to high cards with low kickers against people with calling ranges that are not extremely loose. I just thought that was surprising anyway. Never mind. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Bigwig
12-29-2005, 05:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure it is of much value to base pre-flop equity on a hand's value against random hands (as you've doen in the opening post.

[/ QUOTE ]

But until you're called, aren't all the hands you're about to face random? This reminds me of the wave/particle quantum theory experiment.