99

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think Q10 is more probable than 22? Imo a loose passive plays them exaclty the same. Why should I discount any 89s? He has a gutshot. Thats enough for a loose passive. I think you are unfair right now. I did change my range on every street except the river. But the river bet can imo mean anything. Even loose passives realise they might have to bluff their J9s or 98s here. :/

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be being harsh, but I think that this is one of the most common mistakes people are doing right now when analyzing, and I really want people to fix it at least a bit.

QT is more probably than 22 because he plays them differently on average.

I am going to use some random estimations here, so don't jump down my throat about the numbers. There are 12 combos of QTo, and 6 combos of 22. Lets say he cold calls QTo 75% of the time, and 22 50% of the time. Lets say he calls the flop with QTo 100% of the time, and calls the flop with 22 50% of the time. Lets say he checks the turn with QTo 50% of the time, and checks the turn with 22 100% of the time. Lets say he is equally likely to bet the river.

From these numbers there are now:

QT - 12 * .75 * .5 = 4.5 combos
22 - 6 * .5 * .5 = 1.5 combos

With the kind of weighting people normally do, QT is only twice as likely as 22. But if we think about it more, we see that QT is three times as likely. This makes a huge difference.

You don't need to be so exact, as we can never estimate perfectly, but putting a little more effort into figuring out how often he might play a hand a certain way could change your equity result drastically.

Edit: You should discount 89s drastically because although he has a gutshot, he is still folding this flop a huge amount of the time.