[Aisthesis]

Thanks very much for the encouragement--as well as the initial idea that got this whole thing going!!

Anyhow, here's the comparison to Karlsson-Sklansky. I'm going to abbreviate my all-in value for 2 players as "AV2." "DF" stands for difference factor and is simply the K-S result divided by my AV2.

Hand---------AV2--------K/S--------DF
99-----------68.68------191.41-----2.79
AQo----------67.67------192.67-----2.85
88-----------57.39------159.30-----2.78
AJs----------65.50------183.22-----2.80
77-----------48.93------134.85-----2.76
AJo----------48.09------136.31-----2.83
66-----------42.35------115.35-----2.72
A9s----------36.29------104.12-----2.87
...
22-----------24.08------48.06------2.00
...
JTs----------11.46------36.11------3.15

Well, I left some out, but did want to include the atypical cases of 22 and JTs. Everything else seems to hover pretty much around a difference factor of 2.8.

The main difference is that K/S does have hands not folding that are slight underdogs--they only fold if they don't have odds to call. On my list, all underdogs just fold (even in the blinds).

Obviously, the K-S method is more accurate, but I thought the simplification was necessary just to make it doable for more than 2 players. The comparison would suggest that my stack-sizes are generally conservative.

The big discrepancies seem to occur with little pairs (22 having the smallest difference factor) and suited connectors (JTs, which is the only suited connector I've calculated, has the biggest difference factor). I'm not sure exactly why that is.

Clearly, 22 is going to get lots of underdog callers on the K/S scenario because almost any hand that doesn't include a 2 is going to have odds to call from BB. I'm just not sure why that would drive the difference factor down. It would in any case suggest that I may not be giving the little pairs quite enough credit, although even 22 comes off pretty well (marginal with 6 players, decent with 5, and downright good with only 4 players).

JTs will no doubt be typical of the other suited connectors, and the comparison suggests that I may be ranking it too high--although my calculations show it as marginal in LP. QJs will be slightly better, but I think the rest of the suited connectors will turn out completely untenable except possibly from SB, as in K-S. So, while my simplification appears to have the worst consequences here, these hands aren't going to be particularly relevant for this problem anyway.