[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I asked if I was missing something. Versus their range of hands, I see the difference as about 1.5% in having either hand against their range

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't get it. Here:

With KQ you are AHEAD of their range more often. Which in turn brings down their edge. Therefore, the margin is wider w/KQ vs their range, than w/KJs, look back, AGAIN.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking back:

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: 28.7484 % [ 00.27 00.01 ] { AA-22, AKs-A2s, KQs-K8s, QJs-QTs, JTs, AKo-A2o, KQo-K9o, QJo-QTo, JTo }
Hand 2: 19.6655 % [ 00.19 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 3: 19.6635 % [ 00.19 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 4: 31.9227 % [ 00.31 00.01 ] { KJs }


For what it's worth I call w/KQs here:

Hand 1: 27.9476 % [ 00.27 00.01 ] { AA-22, AKs-A2s, KQs-K8s, QJs-QTs, JTs, AKo-A2o, KQo-K9o, QJo-QTo, JTo }
Hand 2: 19.3093 % [ 00.18 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 3: 19.2785 % [ 00.18 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 4: 33.4646 % [ 00.32 00.01 ] { KQs }

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course KQ is ahead more often. I wasn't disputing that. That wasn't what I was asking about. Obviously KQs is better than KJs. By your numbers it's better than KJs by 1.5% versus the field. My argument is that KJ is ahead enough on it's own, (over 25%) given their(the fields) range, to see the flop versus these 3 opponents. Based on your numbers, it is.

My question was whether I was reading the 31.9% number right for KJs. Meaning you're ahead of their range(all 3 opponents) that % of the time as far as pot equity.

b