[Daxonovitch]

[ QUOTE ]
one of the biggest PT drawbacks, and something that would be a drawback to your initial concept as well, is the fact that the number of hole cards used to create the hand is not distinguished.

for example, a hand like 33 on a K77 board would end up defined as a two pair non-drawing hand, but it would play dramatically differently then a K9 on the same board.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hm, good point. I don't really know a way around this, though, short of calling 33 on K77 "one pair" (the poker players' convention). I'll have to think on that point a bit.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, in headsup play Qhi unimproved has showdown value, and Ahi has can be bet for value unimproved. One is not necessarily "drawing" with all kinds of hands that you would initially classify as "drawing".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's no problem. You just call Ahi and Qhi by their respective names (as "made hands" with 1 or two overcards or whatever).

[ QUOTE ]
Further, hands that are drawing are often only drawing to pair up so that should be included amongst your "drawing" categories, as it's the most common one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since ALL hands are technically drawing hands in this regard, the equity from drawing to those pairs "cancels out" across the board and doesn't need to be included.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, how would your system deal with multiple draws?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really sure yet! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I would probably need to simplify the drawing hands available so there aren't so many nodes that you never have the same hand twice. On the flipside, oversimplification will probably render it useless or generate a lot of bad or irrelevant data.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that you should definately add a showdown unimproved consideration into the equation. Some hands are made preflop even in limit holdem, and will have no intention of folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. Thanks for the thoughts. I'll post about the program if I get it done, or I'll just forget about it entirely. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]