Re: preflop equity
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like if 55 is included instead of 22, then 44 goes down even more whereas 99 doesn't by so much.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, good point. I put 44 in PokerStove against 3 hands: 77, 54, 43. Turns out that 44 only has 2% equity, while 99 has 57% equity against these same hands. I used to think that if there was a raise and two cold calls from donks that would CC total crap like 43, then I'd be OK calling from the blind w/ 44. From now on I'm mucking 44 but raising w/ 99 in this situation.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly why the previous analysis and discussion surrounding it is flawed. You can't assign exact hands to your opponents. You're assuming that these guys hold very specific hands and it's falsely skewing the results of the simulation.
A realistic simulation would assign small, normal ranges for and EP PFR, and EP PF 3-bettor, a couple reasonable ranges for the 1st/2nd 3-bet cold-callers and probably random hands for the rest. In the situation where this occurs there's going to be A LOT of junk coming in behind those first few callers. It's possible that assigning a random hand in the simulation is giving at least one of the cold-callers too much credit for a hand.
This also doesn't take into account the hot/cold nature of the pokerstove simulation and how that's flawed given that we're not also continuing to showdown - most of the time not even past the flop.
|