Question

[CrisBrown]

Right up to the point where you said "this thread should end."

Cris

[CrisBrown]

nottom,

And if all that can be said is "bigpooch's answer is correct [because that's that the computer spat out]," it's useless information. Some explanation of why TT is better than the other possible hands, for example, might not only answer this one (purely theoretical) question, but might also shed some light onto similar (non-theoretical) cases that might come up in actual game play. That would be useful.

bigpooch's post is the equivalent of writing the correct answer on a math test without showing any of the underlying logic and calculations, or writing "plaintiff wins" on a law school exam without citing any precedents or how they apply to the specific facts. That's fine if the answer is intuitively obvious, but in this case it's not.

So "Here's what the computer said," and "This is poor thinking ... see [the computer] ... this thread should end" are not useful answers in a forum where we are (one supposes) trying to extrapolate generalizable concepts from specific cases.

If that's not what we're trying to do ... then maybe I'm posting and reading in the wrong place.

End of rant,

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Guy,

Rather than the "Why would a moron like you even try to answer such a question in so august a forum as this" tone, why not try this:

"Yes, 65s is better than TT against AA, but only marginally so, and TT is hugely better against AK. Given that AK is only slightly less likely at 3:5, and TT's huge edge over 65s against AK, TT is the stronger hand in this situation."

In short, why not give a straightforward, civil response rather than assuming that you're banging your head on the wall talking to an idiot?

Cris

[GuyOnTilt]

I didn't mean to sound condescending or rude. I reread my response and I don't see where I wasn't "civil" or "straightforward." I believe I gave you an informative response with proper analysis that was both easy to understand and polite.

GoT

[TobDog]

Unless I am missing something, if I cannot have AA then I would want to have AK(suited preferably, not required though). If I have any AK that is 1 less ace for him to have AA( 6 ways to make AA rather than 12), he probably has AK or KK, we chop if he has AK(mostly) and I win when I hit an ace when he has KK and doesn't hit.

tobdog

[alphamale1]

Assuming you will be heads-up, the equity for ties depends on blind sizes relative to your stack size. At one extreme, it could have little influence on your equity and at the other extreme(where your stack size is same as BB) it could have significant impact. If your stack size is same as BB your AKs is probably better than the 1010 in that situation.
If my stack size is 50 times or greater than the BB then the value of AKs is less than any hand that is a 20% winner(against AA or AKs) in my mind.

[LJH]

A PAIR OF DEUCES IS THE BEST TO STAY WITH HIM BASED ON WHAT OTHER CARDS WERE OUT IN THAT PATICULAR HAND. LJH

[theriverwild]

well i don't have any simulators so i have to take a shot in the dark. If he has either AA or AK suited he's more likey to have AK. For me it'd be a tough call between 1010, or 66. I've heard some people argue 109 suited for the straight possibilities but with ak or aa i'll take a made hand. I like 66 because u can make some money when he makes his wheel. However, 10 10 makes his higher straight much harder since you have 2 10's and he's more likely to have ak than aa.

[metaname2]

I don’t understand your response, suits definitely are important because they effect your win rate. Since you cannot tell the opponent’s suits in the question asked, I tried to calculate the win rate based on the relative probability that you would share 0, 1 or 2 suits with the opposing hand. Doing a single heads up simulation with the two matched hands may not be precise enough to draw a conclusion. I did screw up, however in that I said with TT v. AA you would share 1 suit 50% of the time, in reality it would be 66.7% of the time as there are 4 possibilities vs. 1 possibility to share either both or no suits. The importance of the suits is shown in that this mistake actually overstated somewhat TT’s win rate. The correct win percentage is:

.6(.167(.2)+.167(.184)+.667(.193))+.4(.5(.538)+.5( .545))= 33.23% of the time (instead of 33.21% as I said yesterday).

This is a bit better then 88 which win rate is:

.6(.167(.202)+.167(.187)+.667(.195))+.4(.5(.523)+. 5(.526))= 32.68%

These are both much better then KK, for the obvious reason that when you have KK you will be against AA 75% of the time. The win rate for KK is:

.75(.167(.187)+.167(.171)+.667(.179))+.25(.658)= 29.88% of the time.

The figure for 65s should still be 29.04 % of the time as I said yesterday

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
And if all that can be said is "bigpooch's answer is correct [because that's that the computer spat out]," it's useless information. Some explanation of why TT is better than the other possible hands, for example, might not only answer this one (purely theoretical) question, but might also shed some light onto similar (non-theoretical) cases that might come up in actual game play. That would be useful.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're thinking about this backwards. When there's just a percentage point or two separating different answers, you're not likely to be able to "reason out" the correct answer so that you can be certain of it. Several people, including Cris, posted that the answer is "definitely 65s" which is just wrong. There's nothing wrong with explanation or discussion of the correct answer, but let's recognize that bigpooch's answer, obtained with computer aid, is correct, and then discuss it.

[ QUOTE ]
bigpooch's post is the equivalent of writing the correct answer on a math test without showing any of the underlying logic and calculations, or writing "plaintiff wins" on a law school exam without citing any precedents or how they apply to the specific facts. That's fine if the answer is intuitively obvious, but in this case it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's entirely unfair. Did you read bigpooch's post? He or she did include the reasoning in arriving at the answer TT using a computer. The important part is taking account of how holding KK changes the probability of the opponent holding AA rather than AKs.