|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Strange Odds
In the case of XY v. XZ (Y>Z), where both have straight possibilities (i.e. AQ v. AJ), XY is a 3:1 favourite.
When XY v. XZ (Y>Z), where X can make a straight with Y but not with Z (i.e. AQ v. A7), XY is only a 5:2 favourite. My odds may be incorrect, but why is a hand like AQ less of a favourite against A7 than it is against AJ? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Strange Odds
I think you somewhat answered your own question already.
A7, as opposed to AJ, has a better chance of making straights v. AQ because none of its straight cards are taken by the AQ. With AQ v. AJ, AJ has a smaller chance of making a straight because one of the Q's is not in play. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Strange Odds
When I ran it in pokerstove, A7 had only about .5% more equity than AJ. slickpoppa may have answered the reason for this. also, AJ and AQ are chopping some straights too. this may have something to do with it.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Strange Odds
Ah, that makes sense. What I was thinking before was that AJ>A7, so AJ should be less of a dog against AQ.
Thanks guys. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Strange Odds
Poker hands cannot be compared easily.
A classic example: AA > KK and KK > 56s, but still 56s has more equity against AA than KK has. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Strange Odds
SO i guess the best hand to go against AA would be 109s of a different suit
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Strange Odds
Actually the best hand against AA is exactly 56s. T9s loses some of its straight potential against AA when the board is something like KQJTx.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|