Question on having equity all in versus another hand

[laja]

If my hand has an equity of 51% versus another hand, does that automatically mean there is a way to play it that is profitable for me 1v1, even if I'm out of position? I remember reading something like this...

[Bez]

Go all-in.

[jogger08152]

That depends on whether your opponent will call your all-in. If he will, you both will lose equity to the rake. If there's better than about a 4% chance (depending on the rake, obviously) he'll fold against your all-in, you gain equity by moving in. If you're playing in a game with a time charge, your all-in gains equity. Note that this is not recommended on a short bankroll unless there's a "good" (you define it - I'd say 10% or better, but I'm pretty aggressive even when money is tight) chance he'll fold to your push.

[laja]

I'm not talking about moving all in, I am talking about, blind stealing, if little blind has 51% equity on big blind, does that mean he will always profit by coming in for a raise to steal?

[jogger08152]

If you cannot (or will not) move in, you can easily have the worst of it despite your microscopic mathematical edge. If the big blind is a better player, the small blind's best play (by a healthy margin) is to fold. Otherwise he will be playing what is by definition a marginal hand, out of position, against a (relatively speaking) tough player.

Also, the most common scenario that fits your criteria would be playing a small pair against suited, weakly connected overcards (EG 22 vs AKs or T6s). In this case, your opponent's playing advantage is large; if he bluffs or semi-bluffs at anything close to correct frequency, you will be easily losing money against him whether you call his bets or fold to them.

[laja]

ok, but lets say I play perfectly, does my being out of position and other factors still make it so my 51% equity is automatically good? do you have any idea what +ev position is worth lol? obviously its different for different hands