[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i actually did blow the first one. that was supposed to be A9s vs. 77. as for the rest, go to the chart and look.
http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evsta...hp?order=value
i'll give you a head start on my examples:
hand/ev vs. hand /ev
A9s/.18 vs. 99/.38
A9s/.18 vs. 77/.16
A4s/.06 vs. 44/-.03
ATs/.33 vs. QJs/.23
A5s/.08 vs. 66/.07
ATs/.33 vs. AQ/.31
A4s/.06 vs. 87s/-.02
i'm not confused, just made one typo. with that one correction, and the addition of the 77 example, you can see that the suited aces do have more EV preflop.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I do not understand your underlying premise.
See
Gocee Poker for a correct EV analysis.
I see now that a made I very slight miscalculation on the AQo vs the ATs but it is so slight that the hand is a true coinflip.
Jimbo
[/ QUOTE ]
i'm afraid i must disagree again. (i'm not trying to beat a dead horse but..)
the EV numbers at poker room are more accurate/valuable than the gocee link you gave.
first of all, they aren't measuring the same type of EV as far as i can tell. poker room measures EV as average return in BB's recorded from real poker hands.
all i find at gocee is a mathmatical measure of
pot equity and winning percentage against a random hand heads up. pot equity and winning percentage aren't the same as true EV.
pokerroom shows actual return on your money across all levels and all positions. that's valuable info.
my underlying premise is simply that suited aces are good/playable hands. they have more EV than other speculative hands that people frequently play like suited connectors. if you're limping into pots with suited connectors you should also be playing some suited aces.
as a side note... i was playing around with the simulator plugging in suited aces in different table positions. they were far more profitable in late position, which is what you would expect. but several hands actually showed negative EV in MP, but positive EV in early position. i'll keep working on it.