is KK more profitable than AA?

[Roswell]

I remember reading a while back that some posters were more profitable with KK than AA. This is true for me so far. What are the possible explanations?

[Petro]

Small sample size. That's about it.

[ggbman]

variance, dumb luck, etc... Make this claim after playing each hand 500 times.

[imported_CaseClosed326]

You live in bizzaro world where kings are aces and aces are kings. Other than that your sample size is too small.

[Roswell]

After how many hands do you expect individual hand values to converge?

[imported_CaseClosed326]

I don't know. Does it matter? Because it really doe not matter.

Thead over.

[Petro]

I don't think my most profitable hands fell into the correct order (AA, KK, QQ , JJ) until about 20k hands.

[Cleveland Guy]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember reading a while back that some posters were more profitable with KK than AA. This is true for me so far. What are the possible explanations?

[/ QUOTE ]

In all honesty - it could be a small sample size, it could also be a leak for you with how you play AA.

Are you holding onto AA for 3 bets when there is a 3-straight 2-flush on the board and none of it helps you?

what about a paired board with lots of action?

People find it easier to get rid of KK than AA.

Just something to think about.

[sy_or_bust]

Obviously AA > KK. But in this case it should be especially clear, since AA wins significantly more than any other holding, since it dominates all one pair hands.

For me:

AA (113) 2.9 BB/100
KK (102) 1.9 BB/100

[Stork]

KK looks way cooler.