Lemma: All Stud/8 Hands Play Better Head-Up

[AlanBostick]

Bill Murphy says so, on the basis of playing around with the twodimes hand simulator.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why or why not?

For what it's worth, I disagree, based on my own experience of play. I particularly want to caution people who about the use of the extremely valuable twodimes tool: its simulations are showdown simulations. Poker is not a showdown game, unless you happen to be lucky enough to play against a particular sort of live one. Hands that are money favorites on third or fourth street can be crippled or killed on fourth or fifth streets ... and weak ones can become monsters.

Implied odds matter. The threat of capped betting on fifth and sixth streets matters if you're drawing. The promise of chopping up one of two players going the other way from you matters. The reward from tiny edges pursued heavily at no risk matters.

Let the debate begin.

[Dynasty]

I find it very hard to believe that (A,A)A or (As,2s)3s plays better against just one opponent rather than 7. I'm sure there are many more hands which prefer a large and even family pot.

[Easy E]

I also disagree, but before I get into it, two things:
------------
Bill's exact quote:
"The more I look into it, the more I'm convinced that almost all Stud8 hands are better off headsup. I think reason why this point isn't emphasized is that no one knew the true EV's before Probe & Two Dimes. "

a) First, he said "almost all" hands... which gives him a small out, but not as much as I think he needs (more later)

b) IMO, as you said, showdown analyzers can NEVER give you the TRUE expected EV of a hand, since the betting will often make the EV change for hands in real play. They give you a THEORETICAL EV value based on THEORETICAL win percentage... but not one truly based on reality (i.e money won/lost, which is the TRUE EV). The classic example- AK vs 22.
What analyzer CAN give you the "true" (net cash return/value) Expected Value? I don't know... with the arguments about the validity of computer play of poker, maybe none of them. I would think that analyzers that try to take betting, and reaction to betting, into account when calculating results would be the closest... whether they could ever be trusted to be THE "true EV" is another matter..
--------

Okay, back to the question of heads-up for 7/8 hands. I'm guessing that the hands Bill had in mind as NOT requiring heads-up are strong 2-way hands that can't be counterfeited (a very small group, such as a wheel straight flush, possibly...as well as four of a kind hands)... Bill, care to clarify?

However, I think there are a greater range of hands than this that can, and SHOULD, invite passengers:

1) Strong high hands that are unlikely to get drawn out on by most low-starting hands (straights, A-high flushes with other high cards, houses), when up against either:
i) a number of lows, especially when they are still drawing and/or
ii) other highs that have little chance of catching yours (partially because your hand is somewhat disguised as to its strength)

In addition, made high hands that can redraw for higher strength (and this is disguised) on a freeroll- these might even be hidden 2 pair hands with longshot straight/flush draws... but I'm not sure about that.

2) Strong lows with some backdoor high possibilities (not necessarily killer high draws) against:
i) Weaker lows that are either drawing thin, or held by players that aren't good at recognizing danger (and will pay to learn about it)
ii) High hands that aren't in #1, that you have a reasonable chance of outplaying
Examples are smooth 7's with runner runner straight potential, 6-lows with a pair or flush possibilities, hidden (Ace under) wheels

Even strong made lows that only have one-way potential can be good "come on along, gang!" hands if the opponents will pay to draw to losers... ESPECIALLY if a high hand will put out some additional pressure.
Examples- hidden wheels with a full house out there

3) Strong low draws against other hands that aren't likely to be played well, therebye costing you less when you miss and making more when you hit
Example- 3 card 6's or better (sometimes smooth 7 draws), against 8's and 7's held by weak players... and/or against obvious high pair by a weak player. A hidden Ace in your hand is even better.


In general, the key concept behind what I've put together here is: You can't make much money with a one-way play, if you're heads up.
- If you have a made low, being heads up against any kind of decent (2 pair+) high hand will only make money from:
I) the antes and money in the pot before it became heads-up and
II) if you catch lucky, allowing you to 3/4 or scoop (only happens occasionally)
This becomes worse if you aren't made yet, since you may brick out.

- For a weaker high hand, being heads up against a low may be marginally better (more scoop potential if they brick early) but won't make a ton of money in those situations AND faces drawout risks that the low hand usually doesn't

Both hands also face the problem of cannabalizing some of their gain by increased rake amounts (due to aggressiveness raising the pot level), which doesn't get compensated for during the final split.

However, when you can get one or more players contributing to pots that you are favored to win, even only one way, the "free" profit that you gain is often worth the increased risk, IMO.

A similar comparison can be made to high-only 7stud, where your 2 pair is against a 4-flush or 4-straight. You will be sweating out the hand a lot, but you'll often get a lot more money out of it as well.
The biggest pots/profit in ALL poker games come from situations where you could be beaten... otherwise, who's gonna be in to build the big pots?
This is especially true/important to consider in split-pot games, where you need someone adding to what you ALREADY are assuming you're splitting.

I await rebuttals...
Easy E

[Bill Murphy]

I actually said "almost all", and FWIW, I've done a helluva lot more in regards to Stud8 than just "playing around with the twodimes simulator."

To be more clear, I believe that a mediocre to good low draw[with outside high chances] when facing a similar low draw AND an obvious non-monster high, needs to get it headsup. This particular situation seems to both come up and get asked about frequently, which is prolly why I used "almost all".

In the thread below, in fact, I said A234 v QQxx certainly wants to keep 752A in, but 642A prolly wouldn't. The "playability" factors I mentioned are very tough to quantify, but they certainly exist in Stud8, primarily due to scary board factor.

It's very easy in multi-way Stud8 pots for someone to be drawing dead, drawing thin for half, or muck shaky looking but actually EV+ hands.

[Bill Murphy]

..or high ante side action, you have more incentive to either get it headup or win the pot sooner, IMO

[Easy E]

Bill, I agree with you on tournaments, in that there are less hands you want to take a risk with...

I'm sorry, but I couldn't translate "high ante side action", specifically the side action part.. ?

[AlanBostick]

To be more clear, I believe that a mediocre to good low draw[with outside high chances] when facing a similar low draw AND an obvious non-monster high, needs to get it headsup. This particular situation seems to both come up and get asked about frequently, which is prolly why I used "almost all".

Perhaps. But in the games I play in, an aggressive attempt by the mediocre low draw to get head-up with the high hand is sort of like a semibluff: it has two chances to win: slim, and none.

The hands you are talking about may well play better head-up than multiway; but they play best of all in the muck.

[Bill Murphy]

I meant live games, w/higher antes and bringins, than their relative lower limits; i.e. 200-400 v 20-40.

BTW I agree with 'almost all' of the points you stated above! [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[Easy E]

I was "almost all" ()of the way sure, but thought i'd check anyway

Thanks for the laugh