Question about hand ranges & equity (calling vs. raising, yada yada)

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect the AT is slightly more valuable because bad players will call raises with Ax and either have to fold to a continuation bet (assuming they are bad/good enough that they don't stop/go) or call when they are dominated, while when you have KQ, they can actually sometimes outflop you with their Ax and there is nothing you can do about it.

Edit: Also, KQs loses some of it's value here because you will not always get to the river.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

So you believe the more powerful hand for yourself should be based on the likely range that you are facing if called, and not it's general equity value?

Everyone following me here?

[lorinda]

The equity value assumes you see all five board cards. Some hands won't manage that, which is why small suited connectors usually stink so bad in SNGs and why LHE players sometimes have a hard time adjusting.

Lori

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
The equity value assumes you see all five board cards. Some hands won't manage that, which is why small suited connectors usually stink so bad in SNGs and why LHE players sometimes have a hard time adjusting.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
I realize that. However, does this mean we should pay little attention to the difference between AKs and AKo? Same principle applies there.

[lorinda]

I could happily play a SNG where I didn't know the suits of my cards until after the flop was dealt. I don't think it would impact me much at all, except possibly heads up.

I think that you have to play your opponent's range, because if you are not called, it does not matter what you are holding.
Of course, working out your opponent's range is the tricky bit [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Lori

[Bigwig]

I dunno, Lori. The difference between being suited and unsuited is pretty important, even in NL. The difference is comparable to TT vs. 77 (not vs. each other, of course).