dominated hand theory

[cold_cash]

This is a general type question, but since I play micro-limits I figured I would post it here. Might not be the right spot, but I don't know. Anyway...

I was just wondering if someone could explain (or tell me if my understanding is correct) the "dominated hand" stuff. From what I'm getting, a hand that "dominates" another is one that will improve more than the one being "dominated" when they both improve. Does that make sense?

Or, is a hand that "dominates" another one in which the "dominated" hand is left with only 3 outs in the deck? For instance, AK dominates AQ because AQ will need one of 3 Queens in order to win, and catching an Ace will only put AQ further behind. If this is correct, does this mean that a hand like 88 "dominates" A7 because the only cards to help A7 are the 3 remaining aces?

I guess I might be splitting hairs with all this, but I would really like to make sure my understanding and terminology are both correct. (And I have a copy of WLLH, and I know there's a section in there about this, but I don't remember how detailed it is, and I loaned it to a friend to read anyway.) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Thanks.

[bisonbison]

I think "dominated" is used more to describe hands that want the same type of board than hands that want different types. I guess I don't think about pairs dominating non-pairs unless they share a card.

AK dominating AQ is the classic example, because if their shared card appears, it usually dooms AQ to a life of misery and hardship. So too with the nightmare AA vs. AK or QQ vs. QJ.

I like to think that a dominated hand is one that could always be outdrawn in one card unless it had trips or a straight.

Take AK vs AQ:

Flop A is AQ5r. AK is way behind, but can win with any King.

Flop B is AK5r. AQ must catch runner-runner Qs to win.

[JTG51]

Or, is a hand that "dominates" another one in which the "dominated" hand is left with only 3 outs in the deck?

This is generally what people mean when they talk about dominated hands. There doesn't seem to be a single definition though. Some people require the hands to share a common card (like your AK vs AQ example) and some just stick to the 3 outs or less preflop rule (like AA vs KK).

[GuidoSarducci]

I've always understood the concept to be a hand where a board will "appear to help you" when in reality, it digs you deeper in the hole.

Let's take the AK vs AQ example. The board comes Axx, giving both of you top pair, however, AQ is, statistically, very much in trouble here. AK doesn't need to improve, and the only thing that can help AQ is a Q, yet both think they've got the nuts.

Using this definition, AA doesn't "dominate" KK, in that there isn't anything that might help both hands mutually, short of a set on the board. Besides, I can't tell you how many times I've seen the rockets or Men go down to the mighty 59o.

[cold_cash]

But I think AA does dominate KK simply because AA need not improve in order to win. AA esentially has 46 "outs" against KK (all the cards left in the deck except the 2 remaining kings), while KK has only 2 against AA, and one of those 2 must hit in order for KK to win.

I understand your point, and I'm certainly not saying that a hand that dominates another hand is invincible, I was just trying to make sure my terminology and understanding were correct. Thanks for the replies.

[ramjam]

I don't think you'll find an official definition of the term "dominate" - it's just a part of poker lingo, not a federal statute. However, you can look up the following if you wish.

Dan's Poker Dictionary (http://www.seriouspoker.com/dictionary.html#dead) says: "A starting hand that will almost always beat another starting hand is said to dominate that hand."

Abdul's pre-flop strategy guide (http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html) says: "Due to the effect of community cards, hold'em is a game of "domination," a term coined by Roy Hashimoto. A hand is dominated if it has 3 or fewer outs against another, like AJ against AQ."

[Brian462]

The reason 88 isn't considered to be dominating over A7 is because they won't both improve by hitting the same card.

In the AQ and AK example, the AQ is going to end up paying all the way to the river in most cases when an Ace hits. A7 will simply not be paying off 88 in very many cases.

In my opinion, domination has to do with how much action can easily be generated between 2 hands. A dominated hand will be paying off the dominating hand, and usually paying well. AT will be paying off AK, AQ, and AJ almost everytime an ace falls. This is why hands like AX, KQ, KJ, QJ and the like can be dangerous, especially to new players who take longer to recognize when they are beat.

[SoCalPat]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, domination has to do with how much action can easily be generated between 2 hands. A dominated hand will be paying off the dominating hand, and usually paying well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is as enlightened as it gets with regard to dominated hand theory, and cuts to the essentials about the value of kickers in HE. Well said.