AK vs A5 anomaly? - Page 2

Nottom · #11 04-20-2004, 01:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I think he did. And I think he's right. If straights didn't count then any Ax hand is equally likely to beat AK. In simple terms you have to hit your kicker while AK doesn't hit the K. Now you may hit it via a pair(or better) or a flush, but if you hit you win (assuming the K misses, A's balance out for flushes).

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you missed it as well becasue Bozeman gave a perfectly good example of when the kicker makes a difference.

Anytime the board is xyyzz where Y and Z are non-K cards above your kicker and X is the kicker for Ax, AK will escape with a draw. When the board is Axyyz with Y > X, AK will escape with a win. There aren't a lot of these boards but there are more of them as your kicker gets lower. This does add to AKs win rate.

You see the same result with pocket pairs. 55 will lose more hands to AK than 99 simply because it gets counterfeited by the board more often.

[ QUOTE ]
So here's a problem - you know that your opponent has AKo. You can choose any 2 unpaired, unsuited, cards to oppose it. What cards do you choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another AKo of course, with the A of his K suit and the K of one of the 2 remaining suits.

Gonzoman · #12 04-20-2004, 01:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I think he did. And I think he's right. If straights didn't count then any Ax hand is equally likely to beat AK. In simple terms you have to hit your kicker while AK doesn't hit the K. Now you may hit it via a pair(or better) or a flush, but if you hit you win (assuming the K misses, A's balance out for flushes).

[/ QUOTE ]

However, as Bozeman has correctly pointed out, it is possible to hit your kicker and still not win, like when you have A4 and the board is TT455. And the lower your kicker, the (slightly) more likely this is to occur.

edit: nottom beat me to it.

BugsBunny · #13 04-20-2004, 03:19 AM

That's what happens when I post late and don't really pay attention. Obvious really. I looked right at Bozemans example and it blew right past me.

Should have gone to sleep hours ago. Instead I go a drop a bunch of BB to some guy that can't miss every time he's up against me. And I, like an idiot, turn into a little calling station thinking "not again". I should (and do) know better.

As for the question allow me to rephrase [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Any non-suited, non-paired cards other than AK (you can have an A or a K if you choose, but not both). That should cover it, I think. Not really that hard if you think about it.

And now I really have to get some sleep.

mostsmooth · #14 04-20-2004, 10:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Obviously you missed it as well becasue Bozeman gave a perfectly good example of when the kicker makes a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe im confused, so please give me an example of when AK can be outkicked by any Ax hand headsup when x doesnt show up on board.

BugsBunny · #15 04-20-2004, 11:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Obviously you missed it as well becasue Bozeman gave a perfectly good example of when the kicker makes a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe im confused, so please give me an example of when AK can be outkicked by any Ax hand headsup when x doesnt show up on board.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're confused. Nobodys saying that Ax will outkick AK. Just the opposite. AK will beat Ax, even if Ax hits x at times. The lower x is the slightly more likely this is to happen.

Assume you have AQ. AK will still win on a board of AKKQ. Now if you have AJ AK will win on a board of AKKJ and AQQJ. For AT the boards become AKKT, AQQT, and AJJT. And so forth. The lower x is the (slightly) more boards possible where you hit x but still lose. Which is why (getting back to the original) A5 is slightly better than A4 - even if you ignore straights.

(Sleep is a wonderful thing)

mostsmooth · #16 04-20-2004, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Obviously you missed it as well becasue Bozeman gave a perfectly good example of when the kicker makes a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe im confused, so please give me an example of when AK can be outkicked by any Ax hand headsup when x doesnt show up on board.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're confused. Nobodys saying that Ax will outkick AK. Just the opposite. AK will beat Ax, even if Ax hits x at times. The lower x is the slightly more likely this is to happen.

Assume you have AQ. AK will still win on a board of AKKQ. Now if you have AJ AK will win on a board of AKKJ and AQQJ. For AT the boards become AKKT, AQQT, and AJJT. And so forth. The lower x is the (slightly) more boards possible where you hit x but still lose. Which is why (getting back to the original) A5 is slightly better than A4 - even if you ignore straights.

(Sleep is a wonderful thing)

[/ QUOTE ]
obviously there are situations where AK can lose to other Ax hands. my point is that if ignoring straights, A5 and A4 do equally well against AK, as do all other Ax hands. if ignoring straights, A2 has just as much chance of beating AK as AQ does. if im wrong, let me know why.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Nottom · #17 04-20-2004, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
obviously there are situations where AK can lose to other Ax hands. my point is that if ignoring straights, A5 and A4 do equally well against AK, as do all other Ax hands. if ignoring straights, A2 has just as much chance of beating AK as AQ does. if im wrong, let me know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been at least 4 posts in this thread that explain why a higher kicker is important. The lower your kicker the more likely it is that you will hit your kicker and have it be counterfeited by the board.

If the board is AJTT8 for example, AK will beat A8 but will lose to AJ.

mostsmooth · #18 04-20-2004, 02:55 PM

so maybe i am confused, who knows [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Army Eye · #19 04-20-2004, 07:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]

obviously there are situations where AK can lose to other Ax hands. my point is that if ignoring straights, A5 and A4 do equally well against AK, as do all other Ax hands. if ignoring straights, A2 has just as much chance of beating AK as AQ does. if im wrong, let me know why.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow... heh.. why don't you read the paragraph that YOU quoted, the one starting with "assume you have... " and tell us which part you don't understand?

Gonzoman · #20 04-20-2004, 08:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

obviously there are situations where AK can lose to other Ax hands. my point is that if ignoring straights, A5 and A4 do equally well against AK, as do all other Ax hands. if ignoring straights, A2 has just as much chance of beating AK as AQ does. if im wrong, let me know why.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow... heh.. why don't you read the paragraph that YOU quoted, the one starting with "assume you have... " and tell us which part you don't understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

This takes us back to the original question: Who's on first?