|
|
#21
10-18-2006, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: \"72o is the worst Hold\'em hand\" - How?
All - thanks for the feedback. Some responses have been enlightening (Arnfinn Madsen) and some have been positively inane and useless.
I appreciate your efforts. As a solid STT player, I have a fair idea about HU hand rankings. It is interesting in this thread to read that while people can come up with claims that are technically true (eg, "72 fairs worse against big pocket pairs than 32") they are simply useless - if you KNOW your opponent has a big pocket pair, then you'll obviously not put yourself in a situation where this is an issue (eg, pre-flop all in and turn your cards over). The reason I asked the question is because pre-flop all-in moves (when you have a small stack to bb ratio) are dependent upon ranges - ranges that include your opponent(s) having a variety of cards. In many pre-flop all-in situations, 72 is stronger than 23, because many reasonable calling ranges include A6, A5, A4, 66, 55, 44, that 72 is much stronger against than 23. Obviously, they're both [censored] against 88+, and the marginal benefit of the straight possibility in 23 is not significant. Given I know this (and given that this is reasonably self-evident to anyone who considers the situation in its realistic implementation) I appreciate the feedback. I think the most interesting part of this is how hand rankings change with the numbers of players remaining. The links from the bottom of Arnfinn Madsen's linked page make for interesting study. 
|
|
#22
10-19-2006, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"72o is the worst Hold\'em hand\" - How?
[ QUOTE ]
All - thanks for the feedback. Some responses have been enlightening (Arnfinn Madsen) and some have been positively inane and useless. I appreciate your efforts. As a solid STT player, I have a fair idea about HU hand rankings. It is interesting in this thread to read that while people can come up with claims that are technically true (eg, "72 fairs worse against big pocket pairs than 32") they are simply useless - if you KNOW your opponent has a big pocket pair, then you'll obviously not put yourself in a situation where this is an issue (eg, pre-flop all in and turn your cards over). The reason I asked the question is because pre-flop all-in moves (when you have a small stack to bb ratio) are dependent upon ranges - ranges that include your opponent(s) having a variety of cards. In many pre-flop all-in situations, 72 is stronger than 23, because many reasonable calling ranges include A6, A5, A4, 66, 55, 44, that 72 is much stronger against than 23. Obviously, they're both [censored] against 88+, and the marginal benefit of the straight possibility in 23 is not significant. Given I know this (and given that this is reasonably self-evident to anyone who considers the situation in its realistic implementation) I appreciate the feedback. I think the most interesting part of this is how hand rankings change with the numbers of players remaining. The links from the bottom of Arnfinn Madsen's linked page make for interesting study. [/ QUOTE ] *Shrugs* Your statements here seem to have little to do with your original question. What is the basis for 7-2 being considered a worse hand than 2-3. Against the universe of other hands 2-3 performs better than 7-2. The gist of what you are saying in your latest post is that, this isn't significant because 7-2 might be a better hand considering the way people actually play. For instance most hands don't reach showdown, which means you are trying to factor in when and where people fold. And apparently you are trying to factor in what people might actually play PF. And who knows what else. Which is fine, but if what you want to say is in some circumstances 7-2 is better than 2-3 I don't think anybody can deny it. The problem is then saying, thus 7-2 is a better hand than 2-3. Why isn't the corrollary, that in far more circumstances 2-3 is the better hand, a factor in your thinking. For that matter, if we're taking game play into account, why not factor in that virtually all of the time you're going to fold 2-3 and 7-2 PF? They're both equally bad if you fold-em PF. [ QUOTE ] In many pre-flop all-in situations, 72 is stronger than 23, because many reasonable calling ranges include A6, A5, A4, 66, 55, 44, that 72 is much stronger against than 23. Obviously, they're both [censored] against 88+, and the marginal benefit of the straight possibility in 23 is not significant. [/ QUOTE ] This just seems silly. How many more hands might be in the calling range where 2-3 is the better hand? In other words, if they're calling with those A rags they're also calling with better aces. They probably don't have in their range Q-4, but they might have Q-J, Q-10, Q-9, No J-5, but J-10, and on and on and on. Perhaps what you are saying is that, there are a few hands in the persons calling range that 7-2 offsuit performs almost 20 percentage points better than 2-3 and that possibility is worth more to me than that 2-3 is 3 or 4 percentage points better against the entire range of my opponents likely calling hands. Thats fine as a strategic judgement, although I'm not sure how it stacks up from an EV consideration. --Zetack
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
