Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Btw, Chen/Ankenman mention A5s in their on Jam/Fold also, so it seems that these hands do indeed rank very high.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have read and re-read that section dozens of times and I still haven't figured out why A5 (as opposed to Ax with x>5) is in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of all the Axs, A5s has the second-best equity (after ATs) against AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Jerrod, but this still doesn't explain why Andy seems to be ranking A4s ahead A5s (and both ahead of QQ in terms of jam/fold against a random hand).

Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Btw, Chen/Ankenman mention A5s in their on Jam/Fold also, so it seems that these hands do indeed rank very high.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have read and re-read that section dozens of times and I still haven't figured out why A5 (as opposed to Ax with x>5) is in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of all the Axs, A5s has the second-best equity (after ATs) against AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Jerrod, but this still doesn't explain why Andy seems to be ranking A4s ahead A5s (and both ahead of QQ in terms of jam/fold against a random hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

Rankings aren't like linear; some hands pop in and drop out at lower stack sizes, or are mixed at different stack sizes, etc. When making "tables" you sort of have to just decide when the hand is "in" and when it is "out." I suspect that it's this process that causes Andy's rankings to be this way.