Coilean and Dcifrths talk theory...

[DcifrThs]

theory question:

if you folded AA every single time you got them at party 15/30 how much would you lose? what % of your win rate?

if you folded KK every single time, how much would you cost yourself? same as above.

finally...what would it do to your variance.

-Barron

[Ulysses]

You should go have some beers w/ him instead.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
You should go have some beers w/ him instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

been there, done that...we were discussing the aces vs. kings thing at the ameristar after i lost a big pot and was forced to call two bbs cold on the turn due to picking up the nut flush draw in a big pot...i liked his final answer and want to see if we can get a few responses before either he chimes in with his response or whatever...just a thought exercize to show what aces are worth.

-Barron

[Lawrence Ng]

More + juan posts eh Diablo?

[Senor Choppy]

By folding aces, I'd be throwing away 81.4% of my win rate (TY Poker Tracker). Tossing KK would give up over 50%.

And as far as variance goes, I would imagine it would increase a decent amount as these are the two most consistenly profitable hands.

[Nightwish]

[ QUOTE ]
By folding aces, I'd be throwing away 81.4% of my win rate (TY Poker Tracker). Tossing KK would give up over 50%.


[/ QUOTE ]
Both of those numbers seem pretty high to me.

[ QUOTE ]

And as far as variance goes, I would imagine it would increase a decent amount as these are the two most consistenly profitable hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would imagine the variance would actually decrease. When you win with these hands, you win a bunch. And when you lose, you lose a lot too.

[sweetzer]

Before I try to figure this out mathematically, let me give a blackjack analogy, as the math is similar in many ways, among them that a serious skilled player requires 200-300 big bets to withstand the variance. In blackjack, a skilled counter plays with at most a 1% advantage, and a skilled tracker slightly higher. The key is to play only the games with the most advantageous rules, as slight variations in rules, such as hitting the soft 17,greatly affected the win rates over thousands of trials. Giving up the 3:2 payout on blackjacks renders a game worthless. This led to my investors sending me all over the world for several years whenever they heard of games with more advantageous rules. In holdem, while seemingly AA and KK come up infrequently, once every 220 hands, and at best AA wins 50% of the time, the actual expectation per hand of the game is so small that eliminating these hands would have a tremendous effect on the win rate. In short, I don't think the above figures are out of line.

[Nightwish]

[ QUOTE ]
In holdem, while seemingly AA and KK come up infrequently, once every 220 hands, and at best AA wins 50% of the time, the actual expectation per hand of the game is so small that eliminating these hands would have a tremendous effect on the win rate. In short, I don't think the above figures are out of line.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your blackjack analogy definitely applies. Those figures appeared to be out of line based on my own stats, so either my overall win rate is significantly higher than the other poster's or I don't win as much on AA/KK as he does. That's all I was trying to say.

BTW, AA holds up much more than "at best 50% of the time". It's something like 73% for me.

[sweetzer]

AA should be better than 50% but essentially we're saying the same thing: in a game where the overall expectation is small and one wins only by multiplying the small advantages over thousands of trials, any small advantage that you give up becomes magnified and can easily negate whatever advantage exists.

[Senor Choppy]

The only thing that's really being measured here is bb/hand with aces and winrate. I doubt the amount people win with AA varies that much, so the only thing being compared is overall $ won.

It really shouldn't be that difficult for a majority of people to give an exact answer here.