preflop equity

[BigBiceps]

A 3% edge against 8 people is small, you need MANY hands to overcome the variance.

The pot is almost always giving you 21-1 to see the turn. With 44 what if the flop is 88K. So you have to see the turn, and then even if you get a 4, you are going to get counterfitted by 78 to a K, 7, 8 or a J to the guy with JJ. You could also already be drawing dead to KK. There are many other types of big danger flops like 36J for example with 2 cards suited. ... You make a set on the turn (oops someone already has a set of jacks). ... You make a set on the turn (oops your set card made someone a flush or a straight) ....

99 wins more often than 44.

a set of 9's wins more often than a set of 4's.
99 makes a 1-card winning straight more often than 44.
99 makes a 1-card winning flush more often than 44.
99 wins more often than 44 when there are trips on the board ie. 555.

That is why it is easier to play than 44.

[BigBiceps]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still will fold 44 and 67s though. It can still be difficult to play those postflop even if you have the equity (ie. you are not calling to the river with 44 hoping to spike your set, therefore you lose some equity if you don't flop it)

[/ QUOTE ]
You make a good point here. If you don't feel comfortable - or aren't very good after the flop - then playing these hands is probably -EV for you. However - even mediocre players can make these hands profitable. I think you're overestimating the difficulty in playing these hands after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example with the 67s You are getting odds to call with any piece, so 2 more SB on the flop to PICK UP A DRAW. You have odds to runner runner draws to straights / flushes / two pair etc, essentially calling 2 bets on the flop with nothing because the pot is so big. I don't like the idea of having to put 6 SB's into a pot to see if I can pick up a runner runner winning hand.

[MyTurn2Raise]

I like the ev simulation you did, but I have two points.
I guarantee your opponents are not going to have hands as good as the ones you entered. A few will be in there with A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] or Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. At least that's what I've seen in 7+way action.
Also, I think there is a positive multiplier to pure ev based on position. 9-way makes the game showdown and position will not matter as much, but it will still matter in getting the most into the pot when you hit or cutting your losses when you miss.

[krimson]

[ QUOTE ]
However we are talking MINOR EDGES and to overcome the variance of such playing will take 100,000's of hands due to the large pots and infrequency of this time of event.

[/ QUOTE ]
Infrequency of the event is totally insignificant here. All profit in poker is from pushing an equity edge (whether it be from cards/skill/fold equity or whatever). All profit comes with variance.

This is just another hand, another unique situation that you'll never see again. The ability to recognize a +ev situation and take advantage is what this is all about.

This question may represent a situation that is technically never going to happen. But it does a great job in demonstrating that a lot of posters here are unaware that not having the "best hand" going into a flop is not the necessity they think it is... All you need is an edge.

[krimson]

[ QUOTE ]
A 3% edge against 8 people is small, you need MANY hands to overcome the variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are just the pokerstove numbers. You're completely ignoring this in terms of playing poker. We have position (+ev) and we are the best, or one the best players at the table (assumingly) (+ev).

Our edge here is more than 3%.

[BigBiceps]

I tried to put some junk in there, like 56o, and Q9s is better than alot of the hands I put in, ie, T7s is in there and is roughly equivalent. I also did not want to put the 9 in there because I did not want to distort the value of 99 like I did with JJ and JTs. The results will be different by a few percent depending on what other hands you put in there.

[BigBiceps]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A 3% edge against 8 people is small, you need MANY hands to overcome the variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are just the pokerstove numbers. You're completely ignoring this in terms of playing poker. We have position (+ev) and we are the best, or one the best players at the table (assumingly) (+ev).

Our edge here is more than 3%.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is part of my point of not playing these hands. We are better players, and are essentially playing showdown poker due to the hugeness of the pot, you are having to call with underpairs to the turn and maybe river, and call with runner runner draws, which may not even be good if they hit.

I agree position helps a little in this situation (ie. if it gets capped to you on the flop and you have nothing you can fold), but if it is 2 bets to you on the flop what is your position do for you, you have the odds to call with any runner runner draw. That is not using our superior poker skills optimally IMO and is unnecessarily asking for big swings in bankroll. Most players go ON TILT sometimes regardless of their skill levels, and this is just the type of pot that can cause this, which also somewhat reduces the EV of playing.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
A 3% edge against 8 people is small, you need MANY hands to overcome the variance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's suppose that no money went into the pot post flop and that all pots were just the 18BBs already in the pot. This is the worst case for me, given my equity advantage. If I could play this hand 100 times with a 14% equity (3% over my 11% break even equity), my EV would be 50BB/100 hands. Tell me again about needing MANY hands to show a profit.

[ QUOTE ]
99 wins more often than 44.

a set of 9's wins more often than a set of 4's.
99 makes a 1-card winning straight more often than 44.
99 makes a 1-card winning flush more often than 44.
99 wins more often than 44 when there are trips on the board ie. 555.


[/ QUOTE ]
Using your own analysis, you show that 99 will win 1 in 100 hands that 44 doesn't - and that's if you go all the way to the river, which you often won't. I was going to figure out the odds of those things you listed actually happening but, of course, you already showed me they happen, in aggregate, about 1% of the time. It's amazing to me that you think it would take 100,000s of hands to show the difference between 11% and 14% equity, yet you think the difference between 14% and 15% equity is the difference between mucking and playing.

[BigBiceps]

I said 100,000's of hands, because this situation happens at most maybe 1 in 1000 hands, so that would be a sample size of 100. I actually have not ever seen this situation in 50,000 hands, which is why I said this was absurd to begin with.

Part of my argument for 99 instead of 44 is that it is easier to play it correctly. Also, let's not forget 99's value goes up if the random eight hands we are playing against does not include an overpair. Also, these are just some random hands, different hands will obviously have different percentages. Like if 55 is included instead of 22, then 44 goes down even more whereas 99 doesn't by so much.

[krimson]

While arguing with this guy I was thinking to myself. "This is totally the type of guy who's going to end up posting in the Zoo that online poker is rigged"

Not even an hour later he posts a poll in the Zoo hinting towards the fact that PokerStars SNG's are rigged...

[ QUOTE ]
To dismiss the fact that some facets of online poker is rigged, is simply ignorance or denial.

[/ QUOTE ]