| |
Main
Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:41:33
From: Esko
Subject: 22 vs random hand
|
In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:08:49
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 5 2006 8:41 PM, Esko wrote:
> In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
Including ties, yes.
Text results appended to pokerstove.txt
12,585,434,400 games 12.875 secs 977,509,467 games/sec
Board:
Dead:
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 50.3340 % 49.39% 00.95% { 22 }
Hand 2: 49.6660 % 48.72% 00.95% { random }
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
---
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec
From: Chris in Texas
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 5 2006 10:08 PM, FellKnight wrote:
> On Dec 5 2006 8:41 PM, Esko wrote:
>
> > In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
>
> Including ties, yes.
>
> Text results appended to pokerstove.txt
>
> 12,585,434,400 games 12.875 secs 977,509,467 games/sec
>
> Board:
> Dead:
>
> equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
> Hand 1: 50.3340 % 49.39% 00.95% { 22 }
> Hand 2: 49.6660 % 48.72% 00.95% { random }
>
Sheeut, and I thought I was gonna see a rampage strategy flamewar between you 2.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:25:04
From: Kinnipak
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 5 2006 10:08 PM, FellKnight wrote:
> On Dec 5 2006 8:41 PM, Esko wrote:
>
> > In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
>
> Including ties, yes.
>
> Text results appended to pokerstove.txt
>
> 12,585,434,400 games 12.875 secs 977,509,467 games/sec
>
> Board:
> Dead:
>
> equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
> Hand 1: 50.3340 % 49.39% 00.95% { 22 }
> Hand 2: 49.6660 % 48.72% 00.95% { random }
>
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
Just Curious.....
You ever been off like, say..oh..3 cents when balancing your checkbook? No
matter what you do...you can't find it?
Is that one of those nightmares you wake up soaked in a cold sweat?
:-)
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:26:02
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 5 2006 10:25 PM, Kinnipak wrote:
> Just Curious.....
>
> You ever been off like, say..oh..3 cents when balancing your checkbook?
When I do what now? :)
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:34:51
From: Fred
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
"Kinnipak" <a83ea3b@webnntp.invalid > wrote in
news:gq0i44xipu.ln2@recgroups.com:
> You ever been off like, say..oh..3 cents when balancing your
> checkbook? No matter what you do...you can't find it?
>
> Is that one of those nightmares you wake up soaked in a cold sweat?
Last night I added up about 100 figures. Many of them were odd amounts of
dollars and cents. The result was $12,000.00. Since the odds of that being
the right answer were high I rechecked everything over for more than an
hour. It turns out that the addition was correct. That is the longest time
I have ever spent trying to find an error I didn't make.
Fred.
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 13:48:13
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 6 2006 3:41 AM, Esko wrote:
> In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
Depends on what you mean....running it hot and cold, probably not much in it,
but set farming when its cheap to see the flop, you shoud win a lot more with it
than a random hands.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 20:39:41
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 6 2006 7:48 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 6 2006 3:41 AM, Esko wrote:
>
> > In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
>
> Depends on what you mean....running it hot and cold, probably not much in it,
> but set farming when its cheap to see the flop, you shoud win a lot more with
> it
> than a random hands.
Well, I guess that's right. Set farming with 22 works out much better than set
farming with AKo. And 22 has a slight edge versus AKo.
What's wrong is the idea that those two factiods have anything to do with the
relative values of those hands.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Dec
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 6 2006 8:39 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 6 2006 7:48 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Dec 6 2006 3:41 AM, Esko wrote:
> >
> > > In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
> >
> > Depends on what you mean....running it hot and cold, probably not much in
> > it,
> > but set farming when its cheap to see the flop, you shoud win a lot more
> > with
> > it
> > than a random hands.
>
> Well, I guess that's right. Set farming with 22 works out much better than
> set
> farming with AKo. And 22 has a slight edge versus AKo.
>
> What's wrong is the idea that those two factiods have anything to do with the
> relative values of those hands.
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
But that wasnt the question, it wasnt a case of the relative strengths of 22 V
AKo; he was asking the expected equity between 22 and a random hand...Since wheh
has AKo became a random hand?
Actually, in deep stack cash ring game, I rather hold 22 than AKo ...you are far
more likely to be ahead when you get strong action with an improved 22 than you
are with an improved AK....I start to sweat when I get strong action on a K or A
high flop with ace king, unless the other player is an idiot, its hard to have
confidence with only TPTK when getting strong action. However, I would always
welcome action with a set of 2s.
In deep stack cash games, 22 with lose you a lot of small pots and win you the
occassional monster pot, whereas AK will win you a lot of small pots (incuding
the times when you take down the pot with a continuation bet on a blank flop)
but will lose you the odd big pot.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 12:22:47
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
phlash74 wrote:
> On Dec 8, 11:49 am, "Will in New Haven"
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > phlash74 wrote:
> > > So if strong action means your TPTK is no good in these games, what
> > > does it say about your bottom set? The only hand that you beat with
> > > bottom set that also beats TPTK is two pair (which can make a higher
> > > boat).
> >An overpair beats TPTK. Unimproved overpairs are the hands that have
> > lost the biggest pots I have ever seen, including several that I have
> > won. People who make you put in 6-10BB when they have AA will often, on
> > an uncoordinated board, stack off for 150-200BB, especially if you
> > don't slowplay. Then they turn red and call you names, which is even
> > more fun.
> >
> > Two pair have four outs to a boat. I don't usually mind people having
> > four outs. They are still getting worse odds than they would on the
> > slots.
> >
> > > Granted you have the redraw against a straight or flush, but
> > > you're still an underdog if all the money goes in on the flop.
> >If your opponent might have a made straight or flush on the flop a set
> > gets very hard to play, I agree.
> >
> > > 22 is
> > > pretty useless unless you're up against people who will commit their
> > > stack with top pair when you have the set. Being on the wrong end of
> > > set-over-set can be VERY expensive, and there's no way to be on the
> > > right end with 22 (unless you flop quads against a boat).
> >Set over set is the biggest problem with any small pair making a set.
> > It isn't common but it can be very expensive. If you leave the big
> > overpair out of the picture, you make a good case but I have seen too
> > many "premium pairs" lose to sets (when all the money went in when the
> > nit with Aces or Kings had two outs) to give up on playing pairs for
> > sets when the stacks are deep. 22,33,44 and 55 are awfully dangerous.
> > You need a single opponent whose hand is well-defined as AA or KK. Any
> > pair bigger than 55, I will take my chances for a cheap flop.
> >
> > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
>
> You're absolutely right about the overpairs, I was thinking more in
> terms of AK hitting the Ace than I was anything else, since Nick said
> he'd rather have 22 than AKo. By all means, if you can get someone to
> stack off with AA or KK on a Q72 rainbow board, after they let you see
> the flop cheaply with 22, go ahead and do it. Nick seems to believe
> that he is good enough to get away from top pair or an unimproved
> overpair in the face of strong action, while his opponents will stack
> off with the same holding (hence his line about always welcoming action
> with a set). I'm wondering if his opponents wouldn't also stack off
> with AQ vs. his AK on a board of A92 rainbow. It's pretty silly to say
> you don't want strong action with AK on that board but you're OK with
> 22. Isn't the likeliest holding to give you strong action 99? I never
> said the baby pairs were useless if you can get your opponents to
> commit when they're way behind. The same group of opponents will
> likely pay you off with top pair weaker kicker on a consistent basis.
>
> Michael
A lot of them will slow down enough with hands like top pair, weaker
kicker, that you have to make value bets that they can call without
going broke. Not that I mind winning a good pot. It's just that a great
pot is better. On that particular board, if I could rule out AA due to
the pre-flop action, 99 would be my big worry. However, people I see
will play A9 pretty hard on that board and that hand is not good
against a set and VERY good against AK.
Will in New Haven
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 12:15:57
From: phlash74
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 8, 11:49 am, "Will in New Haven"
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote:
> phlash74 wrote:
> > So if strong action means your TPTK is no good in these games, what
> > does it say about your bottom set? The only hand that you beat with
> > bottom set that also beats TPTK is two pair (which can make a higher
> > boat).
>An overpair beats TPTK. Unimproved overpairs are the hands that have
> lost the biggest pots I have ever seen, including several that I have
> won. People who make you put in 6-10BB when they have AA will often, on
> an uncoordinated board, stack off for 150-200BB, especially if you
> don't slowplay. Then they turn red and call you names, which is even
> more fun.
>
> Two pair have four outs to a boat. I don't usually mind people having
> four outs. They are still getting worse odds than they would on the
> slots.
>
> > Granted you have the redraw against a straight or flush, but
> > you're still an underdog if all the money goes in on the flop.
>If your opponent might have a made straight or flush on the flop a set
> gets very hard to play, I agree.
>
> > 22 is
> > pretty useless unless you're up against people who will commit their
> > stack with top pair when you have the set. Being on the wrong end of
> > set-over-set can be VERY expensive, and there's no way to be on the
> > right end with 22 (unless you flop quads against a boat).
>Set over set is the biggest problem with any small pair making a set.
> It isn't common but it can be very expensive. If you leave the big
> overpair out of the picture, you make a good case but I have seen too
> many "premium pairs" lose to sets (when all the money went in when the
> nit with Aces or Kings had two outs) to give up on playing pairs for
> sets when the stacks are deep. 22,33,44 and 55 are awfully dangerous.
> You need a single opponent whose hand is well-defined as AA or KK. Any
> pair bigger than 55, I will take my chances for a cheap flop.
>
> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
You're absolutely right about the overpairs, I was thinking more in
terms of AK hitting the Ace than I was anything else, since Nick said
he'd rather have 22 than AKo. By all means, if you can get someone to
stack off with AA or KK on a Q72 rainbow board, after they let you see
the flop cheaply with 22, go ahead and do it. Nick seems to believe
that he is good enough to get away from top pair or an unimproved
overpair in the face of strong action, while his opponents will stack
off with the same holding (hence his line about always welcoming action
with a set). I'm wondering if his opponents wouldn't also stack off
with AQ vs. his AK on a board of A92 rainbow. It's pretty silly to say
you don't want strong action with AK on that board but you're OK with
22. Isn't the likeliest holding to give you strong action 99? I never
said the baby pairs were useless if you can get your opponents to
commit when they're way behind. The same group of opponents will
likely pay you off with top pair weaker kicker on a consistent basis.
Michael
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 18:22:09
From: Olemite
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
Nevermind. You're right. Just ignore me.
Ole
Olemite wrote:
> 22 vs 3-K is not a coin flip.
>
> Ole
>
> Omaha Chris wrote:
> > Esko wrote:
> > > In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
> >
> >
> > Pair in the hole vs. overcards is always a coinflip, regardless of the
> > pair or the overcards.
> >
> > Overpair vs. underpair = underpair is screwed.
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 18:15:37
From: Olemite
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
22 vs 3-K is not a coin flip.
Ole
Omaha Chris wrote:
> Esko wrote:
> > In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
>
>
> Pair in the hole vs. overcards is always a coinflip, regardless of the
> pair or the overcards.
>
> Overpair vs. underpair = underpair is screwed.
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 17:47:56
From: Omaha Chris
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
Esko wrote:
> In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
Pair in the hole vs. overcards is always a coinflip, regardless of the
pair or the overcards.
Overpair vs. underpair = underpair is screwed.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 18:33:27
From: Rubber Biscuit
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
"Omaha Chris" <cpsaros@NOSPAMgmail.com > wrote in message
news:el7rs702m2l@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Esko wrote:
>> In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
>
>
> Pair in the hole vs. overcards is always a coinflip, regardless of the
> pair or the overcards.
I always thought a hand like 77 versus AK was *slightly* less favorite than
a hand like QQ versus AK, because of the possibility of the cards needed by
AK would help fill an ace-high straight?
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 20:16:24
From: Omaha Chris
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
Esko wrote:
> In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
I'm curious why you ask this question. In general, I don't understand
why people put so much emphasis on "such-and-such" vs. "random hand."
I think the more practical, useful math is this:
Heads up, 22 will either be 3 to 1 favorite (22 vs. x2), 4 to 1 dog (22
vs. overpair), a coinflip (22 vs. xy), or a tie (22 vs. 22).
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec
From: Chris in Texas
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 7 2006 10:16 PM, Omaha Chris wrote:
> Esko wrote:
> > In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
>
>
> I'm curious why you ask this question. In general, I don't understand
> why people put so much emphasis on "such-and-such" vs. "random hand."
>
The OP is Esko, of Rampage fame. He's wondering whether to push w/ 22 in an
unraised pot (given a raise would eliminate many random hands from raiser's
possible holdings). What he needs to consider though is the equity of getting
all those little limps and blinds is worth it when you factor in his equity when
he's actually called. I doubt 22 is +EV in the long run in those situations.
But what do I know, I found Rampaging's "boredom half-life" to be only slightly
longer than Moola's.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 7 2006 10:16 PM, Omaha Chris wrote:
> Esko wrote:
> > In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
>
>
> I'm curious why you ask this question. In general, I don't understand
> why people put so much emphasis on "such-and-such" vs. "random hand."
>
> I think the more practical, useful math is this:
>
> Heads up, 22 will either be 3 to 1 favorite (22 vs. x2), 4 to 1 dog (22
> vs. overpair), a coinflip (22 vs. xy), or a tie (22 vs. 22).
It's much simpler to judge things by averages than by looking at the
distribution. Using a single parameter just makes things much more simple.
I dropped my keys over there. But there's a street light here. Let's look
here.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 12:33:18
From: phlash74
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 7, 10:33 am, "Rubber Biscuit" <r...@rbdddddc.com > wrote:
> "Omaha Chris" <cpsa...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in messagenews:el7rs702m2l@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> > Esko wrote:
> >> In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
>
> > Pair in the hole vs. overcards is always a coinflip, regardless of the
> > pair or the overcards.I always thought a hand like 77 versus AK was *slightly* less favorite than
> a hand like QQ versus AK, because of the possibility of the cards needed by
> AK would help fill an ace-high straight?
Also QQ can't be counterfeited by two pair on the board vs. AK while 77
can and 22 even more so. The hand that crippled Joe Awada and allowed
Scott Fischman to win his first bracelet was Scott with AK and Joe with
55. Flop was 972, Fischman pushed all-in and Awada called. Turn 9 and
river 7 gave Fischman a winning hand of 9977A.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 21:38:59
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: 22 vs random hand
|
On Dec 5 2006 9:41 PM, Esko wrote:
> In the long run is 22's equity greater than a random hands?
If a tight old guy in front of you looks at one card and mucks then muck your 22
because on of your 2 outs is dead.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
|
