Fold AAxxss preflop fold vs. other "big" hands??

[bugstud]

well having like 0 live hearts hurts, a lot.

[ipp147]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.pokerhand.org/index.php?p...mp;hand=141283

Here's the ugly truth:

pokenum -o kc kh 6h qs - tc 8h jd 3d - 2h 5h ad ah - 9c ac as 3s
Omaha Hi: 376992 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Qs Kc Kh 6h 96162 25.51 280734 74.47 96 0.03 0.255
Tc Jd 3d 8h 129295 34.30 247601 65.68 96 0.03 0.343
As 3s Ac 9c 76791 20.37 271362 71.98 28839 7.65 0.242
Ad Ah 5h 2h 45809 12.15 302344 80.20 28839 7.65 0.160

I was a huge dog to the field, not even close to 25% equity in a 4-way pot. Even the kings are a favorite over me, and the yucky wrap hand had the biggest equity, and was the eventual winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch - I suppose its obvious but until I did some pokercalculator sims I didn't realise how bad your equity is when the other AA is out there and you are against a couple of decent "live" hands.

I can't believe the KKQx hand stuck it in like that though!

[Rolf Slotboom]

Hmm.. I just checked out the thread you linked to, and even though I did not have the chance to read all of it, I think LA Price's comments basically summed it all up.

As to the actual situation, and the results that Joewatch gave: Well, this is a very extreme example. Why?

1. Lots of your hearts are out.
2. Someone has aces too. (This was to be expected, though not set in stone.)
3. The kings are entirely live.
4. The one with the crummy hands actually has ALL three key cards live: The jack, the ten and the eight.

And even then, even in this absolute worst case scenario, you still have 16% pot equity. This means that assuming everyone had equal stacks of $200, and assuming $10 total in dead money, you would get back 16% back of a total $810 pot, say about $130 or so. And since you are in for $6 already, you lose 'just' $64 on average. A lot of money yes, but not that much when looking at the potential reward. And in fact, in the actual situation there are people with shorter stacks than you. Assuming the crummy hand was the first player to go all-in, then you would be in a three-way pot with another one with AA and a second player with KK. Still not a great situation because player 1 has BETTER aces than you *and* the kings are live, but still turning this into a situation that is not *that* bad for you.

Rolf Slotboom
www.rolfslotboom.com

[Big Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm.. I just checked out the thread you linked to, and even though I did not have the chance to read all of it, I think LA Price's comments basically summed it all up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read further down. Although the circumstances in that particular case were very different than here.

[ QUOTE ]
you lose 'just' $64 on average. A lot of money yes, but not that much when looking at the potential reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a hugely misleading statement. Your EV calculation *already* takes into account how much you could potentially win. And in this case you win, on average, -$60 ish for every $200 invested - a fairly disasterous result.

The truth is, in these very rare cases where you are against another AA and a run down hand, you are normally either very slightly EV + or -. It normally is no great shakes either way.

Another factor, an important meta game one, is that in the bulk of these situations you either lose your entire stack or win a comparatively small amount (the choppee). This may also have important factors depending on the table composition and your stack size.

gl

DD

[45Player]

[ QUOTE ]
you lose 'just' $64 on average. A lot of money yes, but not that much when looking at the potential reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know Dave D highlighted this but it is so bad that I had to give it another mention.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you lose 'just' $64 on average. A lot of money yes, but not that much when looking at the potential reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know Dave D highlighted this but it is so bad that I had to give it another mention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that what he was talking about was that in what turned out to be just about the worst case, you will still only expect to lose ~64. However, when you are in the "best case" scenario, you will expect to make much more than that.

I think his comment was fine, just perhaps written poorly.

PS Given the possible range of hands, I'd guesstimate that the call was very slightly -EV.

[45Player]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you lose 'just' $64 on average. A lot of money yes, but not that much when looking at the potential reward.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I know Dave D highlighted this but it is so bad that I had to give it another mention.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think that what he was talking about was that in what turned out to be just about the worst case, you will still only expect to lose ~64. However, when you are in the "best case" scenario, you will expect to make much more than that.

I think his comment was fine, just perhaps written poorly.

PS Given the possible range of hands, I'd guesstimate that the call was very slightly -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Jim, maybe you're right. After reading your comment, I realize that I may have been a little harsh (sorry Rolf !). If that was his point, then I just didn’t get it the first time.

[barongreenback]

A few more numbers:

If shortstack held QdJc9h3d, hero has 21% 4 way.
Removing the shortstack's hand gives hero 31% 3 way.
3 way but counting shortstack's actual dead cards gives hero 29%. twodimes

As it was, hero's share:
main pot: 0.16 * 187 = 30
side pot: 0.29 * 470 = 136
Total EV on hand = -$34
EV from decision point = -$26

Even with the terrible 4 way equity if hero had 35% in the side pot he'd be in profit. It's the 3 way number that matters. The other AA had 38%.

I don't know what the best case scenario would yield.

James

[Big Dave D]

You are misunderstanding what EV means too. Rolf made a direct comparison between the -64 expected loss to the 800 plus pot. This is just a nonsense. A fairer comparison would be the -200 to the 600 potential profit. Or that you might expect your expectation to be in the region of -20 to +20.

gl

dd

[Rolf Slotboom]

[ QUOTE ]
A fairer comparison would be the -200 to the 600 potential profit. Or that you might expect your expectation to be in the region of -20 to +20.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect Dave, but especially this last sentence is utter nonsense IMO. Also your comment on "no great shakes either way" is one that I very much disagree with. The point that I am making is exactly the opposite of what you seem to be saying. I am saying that you may be a rather slight dog (in the unfortunate event of someone having aces too, and especially when there is a third player with live and / or middle cards), but also a VERY big favorite (say, if one player has KKxx and a second one QQKA or AKQJ or so). So, thinking that your expectation here is close to zero is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of this hand / situation IMO. In fact, it is entirely possible that from the $800+ pot in a four-way situation, you could expect to get back $330 or so, and in a three-way pot you could even have close to 50% pot equity, say about $300 in a $600 or $620 pot.

Rolf Slotboom
www.rolfslotboom.com