Razz - Most profitable door card on 3rd?
 

Looking through my statistics over the last 33000+ hands on Full Tilt ring Razz games, I notice a very surprising trend...

Ranking the 13 possible upcards according to the total profit/loss on those hands, I get this ranking from most profitable to least profitable:

4, 5, 6, A, 3, 7, 2, 8, 9, T, J, Q, K.

I find it interesting that although the 6 least profitable upcards are perfectly predictable, that there also seems to be a statistically significant advantage to having a 4, 5, or 6 door card.

Any idea why this is? Is it because opponents are more likely to think that I'm stealing when I'm showing an A, 2, or 3, and more likely to figure me for a real hand when I'm showing a 4, 5, or 6? Or maybe I need to look at my own play -- maybe I'm more likely to (correctly) fold a hand like (A-5)-6-Q on 3rd street where I might (incorrectly) peel one more card with a hand like (A-5)-3-Q?

Anyone else ever seen any discussion or analysis of this? I'd love to get my (X-X)-[A23] hands to pay off as much as my (X-X)-[456] hands are doing.

Re: Razz - Most profitable door card on 3rd?
 

2 being behind 7 is really weird. Otherwise I'm not really surprised; people are more likely to call down if you have to have perfect hole cards to beat them, which will happen more with 4,5,6 doors.

Re: Razz - Most profitable door card on 3rd?
 

It might also be that you play too loose with the really small door cards.

Re: Razz - Most profitable door card on 3rd?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It might also be that you play too loose with the really small door cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to look into that. But I never consciously think of wheel cards by rank on the early streets, instead I think of wheel cards which are dead. If somebody folded a 5, I'd usually rather have a 5 in my hand than an Ace (again, we're talking on 3rd and 4th street). And in steal situations, I can't imagine ever thinking that I'd try to steal here with an Ace showing but fold with a 5 showing...

However, given that my VP$IP percentage is highest with a 2 door card, and my profit return is really lame with a 2 door card, maybe there's something there.


Looking at data for the 2006 calendar year separately from the 2007 calendar year is very interesting in that it clearly shows that I eliminated a big leak in my game. In 2006, I lost more money with 8 door cards than I did with J door cards. In 2007, although I still overall lost money on hands with 8 door cards, I only lost 1/6 as much as I did with J door cards. VP$IP with an 8 showing dropped 6.5% as I figured out which 8s weren't worth playing, and it really showed up on the bottom line.

Re: Razz - Most profitable door card on 3rd?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ranking the 13 possible upcards according to the total profit/loss on those hands, I get this ranking from most profitable to least profitable:

4, 5, 6, A, 3, 7, 2, 8, 9, T, J, Q, K.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm wondering how close the stats are and if the 7-2 might be a statistical anomaly. Otherwise, if we are looking at profitability and not win/loss, your winning hands are most profitable when people stay in, obviously. By fourth street, a 45, 56, or 63 are less threatening-looking than A2,23 or 32. Psychologically, your opponents may be more likely to fold. Of course, that might explain the 7 being more profitable, makes it more likely someone drawing to a 6 will stay to the end.

I also wonder if you are more likely to check/slowplay the scarier-looking fourth street, and bet out with higher cards? It would be interesting to see which fourth street cards are most profitable.

Re: Razz - Most profitable door card on 3rd?
 

Let's just look at it like this - the 7 is in the the right place but the A, 2, and 3 got slung over to the bad side past the 4, 5, and 6. The 2 just flew a lttle farther and ended up past the 7. Now why would this be with the A,2,3?

If all cards are random when you have an A, 2, or 3 door card and you have a playable hand you will over the long haul have a better hand than when you have a 4, 5 or 6 in the door. xx 6 can't be drawing to a wheel. If this premise is true than it is likely you are working to get more money in on 3rd with these A,2,3 hands than with the 4,5,6 hands.

My guess would be that you perform better in smaller pots holding reasonable values than you do in bigger pots even if you have a better starting hand. You do better getting away from mediocre/good hands cheaply when things go sour than you do getting away from good/great hands. Razz can be unforgiving of such things.

Sort of the AA wins small pots and loses big ones thing. One could easily see where a player might constantly overplay her aces to the point they underperformed other lesser big pairs as she played them.

It could also be that you have good starting standards and therefore simply get paid off more with A2 6 than with 6A 2. This the opposite of what you speculated about but perhaps the fold equity isn't as important as dragging them along for the bigger pots. They don't believe your 6 is likely that smooth because they don't play that tight.

The first thing I would do to try for a fix would be to check my aggression a bit on 3rd with my better appearing hands - meaning those hands that both look good and are good. The 3-card-razz-trap. On 3rd you are a long way from catching anything but the antes so occasionally let the hand develop a bit. Lose a litle EV now slowplaying with the best hand but make it up later due to your deception and ability to get away if need be.

Interesting post.

Patty

Re: Razz - Most profitable door card on 3rd?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering how close the stats are and if the 7-2 might be a statistical anomaly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It probably is a statistical anomaly.

On hands with a 2 door card, I'm winning 7.01 BB/100.
On hands with a 7 door card, I'm winning 8.30 BB/100.

All the other cards below 7 have winrates over 11 BB/100, so I think that the winrate with a 2 showing is just abnormally low due to, well, basically bad luck. (I only have about 2600 hands with a 2 door card, still a small enough sample that a few really bad hands could skew the numbers.)


One thought I had, which does make sense to me, is that if I start with an A, 2, or 3, I'm a bit more likely to be acting first on 4th street than if I start with 4, 5, or 6. So with a 4, 5, or 6 door card, I'm more likely to have position on fourth street.

Re: Razz - Most profitable door card on 3rd?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My guess would be that you perform better in smaller pots holding reasonable values than you do in bigger pots even if you have a better starting hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it could be that with the real premium starting hands, I'm willing to just say, "I've got a great hand here, let's just jam the pot here, then let the cards play out and see who wins." Which might be a strategy that wins me money on those hands at (for instance) +10 BB/100. But maybe I could be winning money on those hands at +15 BB/100 if I'd just keep the pot small enough to let my opponents make mistakes.

I think that gives me something to look at. Thanks.

Re: Razz - Most profitable door card on 3rd?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

On hands with a 2 door card, I'm winning 7.01 BB/100.
On hands with a 7 door card, I'm winning 8.30 BB/100.



[/ QUOTE ]

Not that it is particularly relevant to the discussion, but what level are you playing at and what is your overall win rate? Not necessary to answer, just idle curiousity.

Re: Razz - Most profitable door card on 3rd?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not that it is particularly relevant to the discussion, but what level are you playing at and what is your overall win rate? Not necessary to answer, just idle curiosity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every level from 0.25/0.50 up to $8/$16. Definitely more oriented toward the low end of that range, but with significant amounts of play at every stake level except for $8/$16 (which is less than 1% of the hands played).

Overall win rate is just over +1.5 BB/100.