Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And QJ is stronger than JT, as an absolute over the long term. This should be self evident to anyone with the most basic grasp of math.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. For example, JT is less likely to be dominated by a raiser than QJ is. As I said, very situational.


[/ QUOTE ]



Poker Stove:

5,394,338 games 17.014 secs 317,052 games/sec
Board: Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 62.320% 61.92% 00.45% 3340158 24540.00 { TT+, ATs+, KQs, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 19.856% 18.90% 00.97% 1019742 52303.50 { QJo }
Hand 2: 17.824% 17.04% 00.80% 919296 43008.50 { JTo }

[Lethe]

Alienboy, what exactly are you trying to prove w/ that pokerstove? That JTo, when dominated by QJo and up against another opponent with a big hand is an underdog to both hands?

Try Hand 0 against hand 1 by itself, and then do the same with hand 0 against hand 2. I think you will find some interesting results.

[AlienBoy]

I see your point:


PS:
.....

3,435,672 games 8.052 secs 426,685 games/sec
Board: Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 72.302% 71.79% 00.59% 2466532 20273.00 { TT+, ATs+, KQs, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 27.698% 27.14% 00.59% 932396 20273.00 { QJo }


.....


5,486,230 games 13.249 secs 414,086 games/sec
Board: Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 70.590% 70.20% 00.44% 3851227 23926.50 { TT+, ATs+, KQs, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 29.410% 28.99% 00.44% 1590618
23926.50 { JTo }


I see your point, that JTo is marginally stronger than QJo in this situation, but isn't that moot?

Are we playing QJo or JTo against a raise when we know this is the raiser's tight range?

[Hyperrrprank]

this conversation is a result of simplified poker books and advice they espouse. All those "starting ranges" and "strength charts" are a great way to make the leap from the unshaven masses into actually becoming a winning player, but they are at the end simplifications.

[Lethe]

[ QUOTE ]

Are we playing QJo or JTo against a raise when we know this is the raiser's tight range?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously not.

I think the real point of this whole exchange though is that you can't look at a chart and say "oh, QJo is a stronger hand than JTo because it won x more after x hands". As Jeff said, all that chart shows is what some poker players have done with those hands and what the results were. Interesting yes, but not all that meaningful. It's all situational.

I think you know that though so this thread has probably run its course [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Interestinly, in utg/utg+1 Q6o is stronger than Q6s... I misread thisnearlier...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you see that, it's a demonstration that the numbers have not converged. Surely you don't really think Q6o is better than Q6s, do you? That's crazy talk.

Consider that even in a very large database, the number of hands where any kind of Q6 is played in EP may be pretty small. You are certain to see fluctuations in these numbers due to sample size.

[ QUOTE ]
Thenpoint still remains than QJo is a horrid hand in ep.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of nitpicking, I think "horrid" overstates the case. But yeah, folding it in EP is excellent advice.

thanks.
Eric

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interestinly, in utg/utg+1 Q6o is stronger than Q6s... I misread thisnearlier...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you see that, it's a demonstration that the numbers have not converged. Surely you don't really think Q6o is better than Q6s, do you? That's crazy talk.
{/quote]


No, of course I don't think that - just interesting in that as I read this chart more closely, I begin to see some of its deficiencies. I wasn't able to communicate this last night (posting from my iPhone is kind of a pain, actually) Here at home though:

Obviously Q6s is much stronger than Q6o.

Why does it appear opposite in this chart? Because this is a chart of the ev for average players in real hands.

Even bad players fold Q6o in EP PF, but bad players still play Q6s in EP. That is, people are more apt to overplay Q6s than Q6o, thus resulting is lower numbers for Q6s.



[ QUOTE ]

Consider that even in a very large database, the number of hands where any kind of Q6 is played in EP may be pretty small. You are certain to see fluctuations in these numbers due to sample size.

[ QUOTE ]
Thenpoint still remains than QJo is a horrid hand in ep.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of nitpicking, I think "horrid" overstates the case. But yeah, folding it in EP is excellent advice.

thanks.
Eric

[/ QUOTE ]



Okay, so let's put this to rest - My choice of Q6s to compare to QJo was a bit off (though not THAT much). It would have been better to chose a different hand.

AB