![]() |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I asked if I was missing something. Versus their range of hands, I see the difference as about 1.5% in having either hand against their range [/ QUOTE ] You don't get it. Here: With KQ you are AHEAD of their range more often. Which in turn brings down their edge. Therefore, the margin is wider w/KQ vs their range, than w/KJs, look back, AGAIN. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Which is why I asked if I was missing something. Versus their range of hands, I see the difference as about 1.5% in having either hand against their range [/ QUOTE ] You don't get it. Here: With KQ you are AHEAD of their range more often. Which in turn brings down their edge. Therefore, the margin is wider w/KQ vs their range, than w/KJs, look back, AGAIN. [/ QUOTE ] Looking back: [ QUOTE ] Hand 1: 28.7484 % [ 00.27 00.01 ] { AA-22, AKs-A2s, KQs-K8s, QJs-QTs, JTs, AKo-A2o, KQo-K9o, QJo-QTo, JTo } Hand 2: 19.6655 % [ 00.19 00.01 ] { random } Hand 3: 19.6635 % [ 00.19 00.01 ] { random } Hand 4: 31.9227 % [ 00.31 00.01 ] { KJs } For what it's worth I call w/KQs here: Hand 1: 27.9476 % [ 00.27 00.01 ] { AA-22, AKs-A2s, KQs-K8s, QJs-QTs, JTs, AKo-A2o, KQo-K9o, QJo-QTo, JTo } Hand 2: 19.3093 % [ 00.18 00.01 ] { random } Hand 3: 19.2785 % [ 00.18 00.01 ] { random } Hand 4: 33.4646 % [ 00.32 00.01 ] { KQs } [/ QUOTE ] Of course KQ is ahead more often. I wasn't disputing that. That wasn't what I was asking about. Obviously KQs is better than KJs. By your numbers it's better than KJs by 1.5% versus the field. My argument is that KJ is ahead enough on it's own, (over 25%) given their(the fields) range, to see the flop versus these 3 opponents. Based on your numbers, it is. My question was whether I was reading the 31.9% number right for KJs. Meaning you're ahead of their range(all 3 opponents) that % of the time as far as pot equity. b |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
bernie,
sounds like joe is emphasizing the amount of equity that opponents lose as well as the equity you gain, kind of like how an interception returned for a touchdown is more than a 7 point swing, because not only did you gain points, I lost what could have been a field goal or touchdown. so in that sense, you're reading it right but joe is saying that's not the difference between them. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
sounds like joe is emphasizing the amount of equity that opponents lose as well as the equity you gain, kind of like how an interception returned for a touchdown is more than a 7 point swing, because not only did you gain points, I lost what could have been a field goal or touchdown. so in that sense, you're reading it right but joe is saying that's not the difference between them. [/ QUOTE ] I like your analogy, well done! |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
I like your analogy, well done! [/ QUOTE ] But this doesn't make sense (at least to me). I understand all of Bernie's last few posts, but none of yours, after the Pstove post. Your equity with KJs is 31.9%. This means if everyone was all-in, with a $100 pot, your EV would be $31.90. Your equity with KQs is 33.4%. This means if everyone was all-in, with a $100 pot, your EV would be $33.40. Your EV is $1.50 higher with KQs, or 1.5%. You don't get to pocket an extra 1.5% of EV (totalling 3%) just because everyone else is worse off under your KQs. There is no "greater than 7 point swing" analogy here, when we are already talking in terms of equity. Still confused, alThor |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
Your equity with KJs is 31.9%. This means if everyone was all-in, with a $100 pot, your EV would be $31.90. Your equity with KQs is 33.4%. This means if everyone was all-in, with a $100 pot, your EV would be $33.40. [/ QUOTE ] This is the problem with usuing PStove is that we aren't all in preflop and we can make up the extra postflop w/position and excellent postflop play. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
This is the problem with usuing PStove is that we aren't all in preflop and we can make up the extra postflop w/position and excellent postflop play. [/ QUOTE ] Which goes for both hands. Imo, KJs isn't that much tougher to play in this situation postflop than KQs. But this also doesn't mean that KJs is -EV to play in this spot. It just means KQs is better. b |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
KJs isn't that much tougher to play in this situation postflop than KQs [/ QUOTE ] This is true, however we do increase our chance of domination with KJ versus KQ and that increases our reverse implide odds postflop. With either hand if you hit a pair your going to see it through on this table, the preflop price makes it correct to do so the majority of the time. KQ dominated by AK(12),AQ(12),AA(12),KK(6),QQ(6) [48 hands] KJ dominates by AK(12),AQ(16),AJ(12),KQ(12),AA(12),KK(6),QQ(12),JJ (6)[88 hands] This means that we go from roughly 4% of hands dominating us to 7%, so let's liberally say that this yokel is 3 betting with the top 10% of hands, can you see how bad of shape we are in? |
![]() |
|
|