SSH page 135 question

[rudeybrad]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, he reads these forums occasionally, so the surprise factor just went down... Meh, maybe he'll get the hint and pick it up himself.

I think you should buy it, mystery book borrower.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll take that under advisement as I continue my readthrough.

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
A2s is unconditionally a better hand than K2s. You can play with Pokerroom's EV stats to prove this to yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

It lists A2s EV as 0.00 and K2s EV as -0.08 making A2s just marginally better . . .

Also if you note Poker Room lists Axs as +EV with the exception of A2s which is break even:
http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evsta...hp?order=value

[Ed Miller]

It lists A2s EV as 0.00 and K2s EV as -0.08 making A2s just marginally better . . .

I don't know how big you think the preflop edges in limit hold 'em are... particularly for the hands weaker than the twenty best or so... but if you think that 0.08 is a small difference, look at the following hands:

Hands that have +0.08 EV at Pokerroom: AT, A5s, A7s

Hands that have 0.00 EV at Pokerroom: 98s, T8s, K7s, A2s

Hands that have -0.08 EV at Pokerroom: J9, T9, 54s, Q6s, K3s, K2s, Q9

There is a significant strength difference between each of those tiers of hands.

BTW, for the non-believers (not that we have any left here) look at the difference in value between A9s (0.18) and A2s (0.00). The value of Axs falls off quickly and substantially as your kicker drops, all the way down to A3s and A2s.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
A2s is unconditionally a better hand than K2s. You can play with Pokerroom's EV stats to prove this to yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's unwise to use those stats to try to prove about the strength of hands. Those stats are gathered from all players at all abilities. For example, from the stats, it would appear that AKs is a worse hand than AQs in certain situations (6-handed tables in particular).

[Warband]

Let me ask my question in a different way.

You make top pair on the river with a low kicker. Would you rather have King's or Ace's?

T.

[Ed Miller]

You make top pair on the river with a low kicker. Would you rather have King's or Ace's?

That's not asking the same question in a different way. That's asking a completely different question. Generally you'd rather have top pair of kings on the river than top pair of aces.

But notice that when you stipulate "top pair of kings" you've subtly enforced that no ace be on board. I'd much rather have a pair of aces than a pair of kings when the board contains both an ace and a king. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

EDIT: Well, you did ask the same question, but I guess my point is that you cannot even remotely conclude from the answer to this question that K2s is better than A2s.

[Ed Miller]

I think it's unwise to use those stats to try to prove about the strength of hands. Those stats are gathered from all players at all abilities. For example, from the stats, it would appear that AKs is a worse hand than AQs in certain situations (6-handed tables in particular).

You are correct that you have to be careful when you use these stats. Yes, they are played by non-experts, and yes, they do have some sample size issues (particuarly once you start breaking things down by position, number of players, etc.).

But having said that, these discrepancies cannot account for a difference as LARGE as 0.08 BB/hand between two hands over the entire dataset. For instance, look at the entire dataset again. Can you find a hand that you believe to be in the wrong spot by 0.08 BB/hand or more?

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
But having said that, these discrepancies cannot account for a difference as LARGE as 0.08 BB/hand between two hands over the entire dataset. For instance, look at the entire dataset again. Can you find a hand that you believe to be in the wrong spot by 0.08 BB/hand or more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. On pg. 47 of your book KJs looks to be better than .5 BB, but it comes in at .29 BB on the chart.

[Ed Miller]

Yes. On pg. 47 of your book KJs looks to be better than .5 BB, but it comes in at .29 BB on the chart.

The data in the book uses a completely different dataset. You cannot compare the two at all.

My point was, can you find WITHIN THE POKERROOM DATA a hand that you believe SHOULD BE RANKED LOWER than another hand, but that is 0.08 BB/hand or more HIGHER.

[AncientPC]

Ok nevermind, I stand corrected due to insufficient sample size.