A lesson in kickers
 

Here i'm going to locate the median for a random hand given any two live cards .

Ace is the highest and i'll associate the number 14 to it . Likewise , kings, queens and jacks are given the numbers 13, 12 and 11 respectively .

AK = 27 KQ= 25
AQ = 26 KJ= 24
.
.
A2 = 16 K2= 15

Now all we do is sum up all the values for all 2 live hands .

I'll save you the work , but the median is 17.33 . This means that if your hands kicker values are greater than 17 and a third , then your hand is in a better kicker situation . Hands like 10-7 add up to 17 which is slightly below the required value . I'll usually raise with all hands that sum up to 18 or greater .

10-8 = 18> 17.333
9-8 = 17< 17.333
J-7 = 18> 17.33 etc .

Hope you find this post fun !!

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

Can you explain how this is useful in a practical situation? I think if you're doing this kind of calculation and applying your kicker-value much, you're going to find yourself in some very tough situations.

Nichomacheo

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

It's practical in a sense that it gives you a good estimate to what hands you should be raising with preflop .

For instance , 10-9 on average is better than a random hand , so this is a type of hand that is at least worth a raise preflop . Many players tend to become overly aggressive when on the button and they raise with any two cards which I don't believe to be optimal strategy .

It is a rough calculation to the kinds of hands that one should be aggressive with on the button .

Nicho , btw i'm no rookie when it comes to heads up :P

I belong to the pocket fives community and decided to share some of my thoughts on here .

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

A2, a hand with a value of 16 in your system, is monumentally stronger than KQ, a hand with a value of 25. Defend.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
A2, a hand with a value of 16 in your system, is monumentally stronger than KQ, a hand with a value of 25. Defend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't really read his post so i'm not going to defend his "system" but to say that A2 is monumentally stronger than KQ is wrong.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A2, a hand with a value of 16 in your system, is monumentally stronger than KQ, a hand with a value of 25. Defend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't really read his post so i'm not going to defend his "system" but to say that A2 is monumentally stronger than KQ is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's custom to read a thread you're going to take part in.

438,349,824 games 0.579 secs 757,080,870 games/sec

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 57.5450 % 57.28% 00.27% { A2s, A2o }
Hand 2: 42.4550 % 42.19% 00.27% { KQs, KQo }

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

Well if you're talking about hot and cold comparisons , then yes , A2 will win slightly more often than king queen . However , lets not fool ourselves here , we all know that in heads up , you'll make more money with king queen than you will with ace 2 .

The problem with most players is that they use pokerstove too often . It's not about certain percentages that matter ,it's about which hands will earn more money in the long run .

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A2, a hand with a value of 16 in your system, is monumentally stronger than KQ, a hand with a value of 25. Defend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't really read his post so i'm not going to defend his "system" but to say that A2 is monumentally stronger than KQ is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's custom to read a thread you're going to take part in.

438,349,824 games 0.579 secs 757,080,870 games/sec

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 57.5450 % 57.28% 00.27% { A2s, A2o }
Hand 2: 42.4550 % 42.19% 00.27% { KQs, KQo }

[/ QUOTE ]

um 5% doesn't constitute monumental to me.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

Paxo , your argument is flawed .

Poker stove gives pocket deuces an edge over ace king , but we both know which hand you'd rather have in heads up play .


Bottom line is that kickers are so important in any type of poker game and you should be thinking along these lines when you're deciding which hand is more profitable .

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paxo , your argument is flawed .

Poker stove gives pocket deuces an edge over ace king , but we both know which hand you'd rather have in heads up play

[/ QUOTE ]
For future reference, this is where I stopped listening.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

I don't understand you .

Give me king queen over ace 2 any day . I really think you're missing the point .

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

jay u just invent this?

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

I will make you a deal. We will both sit with 10k at a game of 1/2. Each street of every hand must be capped. 12 bets will go in from each of us on every hand. I get A2 every hand, you get KQ every hand. We play until one of us is broke.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

It's not so much A2 will win more against KQ, it's that KQ is a much easier hand to play, and makes stronger hands than A2. With KQ heads up, if you hit either the K or Q, it's a strong hand. With A2, if you hit the 2, that's pretty weak. If you hit the A, you can't feel too comfortable if you get played back at.

Like I think most of us would rather have 89 rather than something like Q6, even though Q6 is statistically stronger in a heads up match. Just my thoughts. =)

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

I just think the whole thing is absurd. That's really all my post was meant to convey. You can't just add the value of your cards together to get their strength.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will make you a deal. We will both sit with 10k at a game of 1/2. Each street of every hand must be capped. 12 bets will go in from each of us on every hand. I get A2 every hand, you get KQ every hand. We play until one of us is broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get what you're trying to accomplish by arguing this Pax. The fact is KQ has two strong kickers, and A2 has only one. This is exemplified by the hand values assigned by OP. In no way does OP claim that KQ has an edge over A2.

Others are claiming that KQ is better than A2 in a HU match, more specifically in imperfect information situations, essentially because it "plays better." I agree. And one very important reason that it "plays better" is that it can make two strong pairs with strong kickers, while A2 can make no strong pairs with strong kickers.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with most players is that they use pokerstove too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience, the opposite is true.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

Yes Kash ,I was just playing around with trying to locate the median . Kickers are very important in heads up play and this type of reasoning gives you a good idea of the monetary worth of each hand .

Ie, ace jack is close in value with king queen . They both add up to 25 .

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

lesson in kickers: the higher your kicker the better
sorry but i think this thread is pretty much useless strategically

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

Fair enough , your thoughts are always appreciated .

I do believe a small lesson is to be learned here .

KQ > A2 because of the sum of your kickers . It is a good estimate .

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ie, ace jack is close in value with king queen . They both add up to 25 .

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with most players is that they use pokerstove too often . It's not about certain percentages that matter ,it's about which hands will earn more money in the long run .

[/ QUOTE ]
how much time did you spend working out this median?
"certain percentages" help you closely estimate which hands will earn money in the long run.

you cite T9 as a better than average hand according to your ranking system and advocate raising it preflop. since when has a T been a good kicker, even headsup? if you hit the flop with that hand, what's your most likely hand? 2nd pair, maybe a weak top pair, if you get played with can you be any more confident of your hand then if you had A2 and spiked top pair? i think not.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
KQ > A2 because of the sum of your kickers . It is a good estimate .

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it ISN'T. A2 is a stronger hand than KQ.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

I never said it was a good kicker . I'm just stating the obvious . 10-9 is better than a random hand preflop , so if you have position with this hand , you should raise it up .

Btw , if you're playing in a raised pot preflop , you can't be that confident in your A 2 when an ace flops . I'm sure you already know this .

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
I never said it was a good kicker . I'm just stating the obvious . 10-9 is better than a random hand preflop , so if you have position with this hand , you should raise it up .

Btw , if you're playing in a raised pot preflop , you can't be that confident in your A 2 when an ace flops . I'm sure you already know this .

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, and if an ace flops you're going to feel really secure with your KQ? This is [censored] stupid, if you can't read basic statistics, you're clearly never going to be a winning player. I'll say it one more time. A2 is a 57-43 favorite against KQ. This isn't up for discussion.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

Paxo , are you implying that ace 2 has more value than king queen in heads up ?

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

he's not implying it, he's stating it as a matter of fact

and you didn't answer my question, can you be more confident of a one pair hand holding T9 than A2? i'm not sure what you think you're imparting strategically but i feel dumber having read this thread.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

If the pot has been raised preflop , then i'd rather have 10-9 if my ten pairs the board . Anytime an ace hits and the pot has been raised , then you're in kicker trouble .

By the way , all I wanted to accomplish with this post was to locate the median and nothing else . This doesn't take into account the added strength of a hand being connected like 10-9 or if the hand is suited .

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

Hey jay I like your idea. I agree that in deep stack heads up I rather have KQ than A2.

How much heads-up do you play and what stakes?

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

hey jay

when i first read this i thought it was an interesting post, unusual idea, but interesting. Unfortunately no one had replied. So i was glad to see all the responses when i checked back today.

However, whilst reading the replies paxo's comments made me mad as he clearly wasn't able to understand what people were saying and was intend to keep stating the same thing.

I hope we can continue talking about the possible value of using your method. For instance you say that you should maybe only raise hands that are better than average (according to your method) but perhaps due to the massive benefit of position you should raise with hands that add up to 15 or better.

On a seperate note paxo, KQ is infintely better than A2 in a heads up situation. Why on earth are you using pokerstove as proof of your argument, no one is talking about what hand is better in an all-in situation!

When you raise with A2 you are essentially hoping to hit an A, which will happen roughly 1 in 6 times however with KQ either K or Q is good meaning you hit a good flop 1 in 3 times. Plus i find that when you do hit with A2 you rarely get payed off as villain doesnt like the A, but if you do get some action you have to worry about your kicker, which brings us back to the original post i feel.

I do not believe that in the Heads up play that i play all-in percentages are useful until you find yourself in an all-in or fold situation.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

I agree Ordinaryboy ,that being in position allows you to play hands that sum up to 17 or 16 for a profit because you get to act last . However , you can improve on this system for taking into account the added strength of a hand being connected .

98 is an example of a hand that is below the median , but it has added strength in being connected . Of course , poker is not an exact science , so it's difficult to quantify this but it at least gives you a good estimate as to the strength of various hands .

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

On the A2 vs KQ debate - I'm sorry Paxo, but I think you've missed the point slightly. There are two factors to consider when assessing a starting hand HU - hot-and-cold strength (which you talk about) and playability (which is what Jay is talking about). Which is more important depends on the depth of the stacks - if you both have stacks of 300BB, the chances are that you're not going to end up all-in preflop with either of these hands, so hot-and-cold goes out of the window and playability is all. If you both have stacks of 10BB, you almost certainly will, and having the Ace gives you a good chance of starting a race in the lead.

The hot-and-cold challenge you issue (cap all the streets, you have A2 he has KQ) is pretty irrelevant. H & C is most important if you're ending up all in preflop - not likely to happen in limit. And if you play no limit, it is very unlikely that you would want to be all-in preflop with A2, because you're likely behind even a loose opponent's pushing range (say any pair, any Ace, any two face cards). In fact, against that range, even a suited A2 will only win 41.1% of the time.

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

Jay - I agree with some of your conclusions, but I don't think your system is massively helpful in that everything it points to is fairly intuitive anyway. Anyone who has played a few thousand hands of HU will have a decent instinct about whether or not they need to worry about their kicker or not, and before that instinct is developed it is unlikely a point-count system will be helpful. In fact, in the long run it could be damaging, because it would inhibit the development of that instinct.

Second, I don't believe that kickers are as important in HU has they are in other forms of the game. For instance, in a vacuum, I would go to the wall with KT on a K84r flop - if I were to do that routinely even in a 6-max game, let alone full ring, I'd want my head examined.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never said it was a good kicker . I'm just stating the obvious . 10-9 is better than a random hand preflop , so if you have position with this hand , you should raise it up .

Btw , if you're playing in a raised pot preflop , you can't be that confident in your A 2 when an ace flops . I'm sure you already know this .

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, and if an ace flops you're going to feel really secure with your KQ? This is [censored] stupid, if you can't read basic statistics, you're clearly never going to be a winning player. I'll say it one more time. A2 is a 57-43 favorite against KQ. This isn't up for discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor is it particularly relevant.

The question originally posed wasn't whether A2 will win the majority of the time against KQ.

The question is what hands are better to raise with against an unknown random hand.

Not only does KQ tend to make more pairs you can feel comfortable with, but even if you were simply to go ALL IN you would be better off with KQ.

(The following assumes any random hand calls the all in, but even if you choose reasonable calling ranges, KQ is still ahead. I can quote some numbers for that as well, if you make me).


equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 45.0714 % 43.09% 01.98% { random }
Hand 2: 54.9286 % 52.95% 01.98% { Ac2d }


equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 38.5442 % 37.52% 01.02% { random }
Hand 2: 61.4558 % 60.43% 01.02% { KdQh }


And it isn't even close.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

Thanks for clearing that up - been bugging me for days...

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

I've been reading through some old posts in this forum and I may dredge up a few interesting ones (or maybe more than that we'll see [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

The main contention here as a couple of posters have touched on a bit is that we're dealing with a little ambiguity here. On the one hand, A2 will win more hands than KQ in the long run, at least when played properly, and we can't even assume that. This is due of course to the many times where the opponent doesn't hit his hand and you take it down with your high card.

KQ though will win more money, or at least should, due to the excellent kicker when you do hit, along with its straight potential.

Therefore we're using 2 different definitions of "better" here, and most of us would prefer the KQ since it's chips and not hand winning percentage that we're after.

Getting back to the original point of this thread, it indeed is a good idea to not make a habit of raising with below average hands, even in position. Ideally though I'd put the threshold a bit higher than what is discussed here. You need to have enough strength to take the piggy to market so to speak on the flop to back up the raise, not to mention the prospect of getting re-raised PF, and I'm not at all comfortable doing this with, say, 10 8.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

jay,

It's a fun idea to compute this kind of "median", but in actual deep (or semi-deep) nl hu play it means very little. I'd rather have 64 over A6 when I'm raising in NL hu (edit: not to say that raising with A6 is not good). There are tons of examples like this. Also, against certain players (and they are not few) it is profitable to raise almost any two in position. Against others your range should be more dependent on your opponent's pf and post-flop tendencies and skills than anything else.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

Thx Mantis for the feedback .

The only problem with this system is that I didn't quantify the extra value of a hand being connected or suited .
For instance , if you compare two hands that have the same sum in kickers , then i'd prefer the hand that is more connected .
ie 10-8 vs q-6 or k-7 .

As for prefering 6-4 to ace 6 , I suppose it is a question of preference but personally according to my stats , I make more money with ace 6 than I do with 6-4 .

I may side with you if you had taken another example such as the aforementioned example .

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for prefering 6-4 to ace 6 , I suppose it is a question of preference but personally according to my stats , I make more money with ace 6 than I do with 6-4 .

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't really imagine making more with A6 than 64 (I'm talking both off-suit) in deep, semi deep NL. I would assume that you tend to (wrongly) apply different amounts of pressure post-flop once you don't hit with any of these two hands, and obviously 64 is more of a stack-off hand (as much as I hate this term) for when you do hit.

Perhaps you consider also stages in SNGs where you are not deep anymore, and that's where A6 is surely better than 64, but that's not what I'm speaking about here.

[ QUOTE ]
I may side with you if you had taken another example such as the aforementioned example .

[/ QUOTE ]

Well concealment plays a great part in hu nl (nl at large), so you can think of many examples of half-connected "trash" hands worth more than, for instance, all kinds of aces kings and queens with bad kickers. And also, generally, kickers may play a relatively small part in NL, as opposed to limit.

And Of course, it all depends deeply on your particular opponents.

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

OH, it is also possible you're not winning with 64 more than with A6 simply because you always fold 64 pf and don't even win the blinds with it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: A lesson in kickers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many players tend to become overly aggressive when on the button and they raise with any two cards which I don't believe to be optimal strategy .

[/ QUOTE ]

you believe wrong

[ QUOTE ]
Nicho , btw i'm no rookie when it comes to heads up :P

[/ QUOTE ]

fooled me

[ QUOTE ]
I belong to the pocket fives community

[/ QUOTE ]

go back