Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked

[Shandrax]

In terms of SC it would be 857 and it is ranked just behind K-K and ahead of Q-Q! It goes {AA, AKs, AKo, KK, A4s, A5s, QQ...}. I understand that the reason for this is card removal and some sort of bluffing equity, but I am still very surprised.

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

[A.Nironen]

[ QUOTE ]
A4s seems to be correct in the MOP tables, at least i cant spot anything out of line.

Push: A5s-A3s: >50
Call A5s: 30.1, A4s: 25.6,A3s: 24.7

What is A4s value in Blochs table?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how those decimals were computed. For example, call with A4s has no exact treshold, the strategy is mixed between stacksizes 25.3 and 25.69 and is equal [0.1646 call; 0.8354 fold] for stack size 25.6. Why this very value was selected for the table?


Andrzej Nironen

[plexiq]

Hm, good question.

As its rounded to the last digit, the actual call-% used as threshold may be a bit larger/smaller than 16.5% tho. Maybe they simply picked some arbitrary limit like 20% or 25%?

Its a surprising choice in any case, it would make more sense to pick a high-% for call, and a low-% for push - which would be slightly biased towards exploiting the "average" player. (Here, we call slightly looser than NE, which probably isnt a good idea vs. an average player.)

But i guess thats way beyond practical relevance. I doubt anyone would want to mix actions for intervals of +/-0.15. And i definitely dont memorize those values to the last digit - as it would be pretty useless to know the exact values, when i dont calculate the stacks-to-blind ratio that accurate anyway.

[A.Nironen]

[ QUOTE ]

As its rounded to the last digit, the actual call-% used as threshold may be a bit larger/smaller than 16.5% tho. Maybe they simply picked some arbitrary limit like 20% or 25%?


[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe.
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Stack Call
25.55 0.3035
25.65 0.0581
</pre><hr />

[ QUOTE ]

But i guess thats way beyond practical relevance.


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, but we speak about theory here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Andrzej Nironen

[Triggerle]

[ 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&gt;5) is in there.

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ 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&gt;5) is in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[Triggerle]

I understand that it has to be an A because of card removal. I believe you, when you write that A5s has the second best equity (and I could run a simulation if didn't believe you).

What I don't understand is why. What is the reason I would get A5s as superior to A6s or, say, AJs against AA if I ran a simulation?

I did notice that it was ten and five. You can't make any straights witout T and 5. Is it that by having one of those in our hand we remove some straight possibilities?

[plexiq]

[ QUOTE ]

What I don't understand is why. What is the reason I would get A5s as superior to A6s or, say, AJs against AA if I ran a simulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

A5s can make straights with 2 hole cards, and can make more 1-hole card straights than A4s-A2s. A5s and ATs have identical straight potential.

ATs/A5s is better against AA than AJ+s, because they have a higher potential to make straights by using the T/5 only.

[Triggerle]

Well, the mystery has been cleared. I understand it now. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the mystery has been cleared. I understand it now. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Now I am adding T5 to my list too since it can make every straight except 1.