Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:15 am GMT by greathuskie
say you are in a tourney situation, MP average stack. you raise 4x the BB with your hand in LP, and a shortstack moves all in for another 6 BBs. which hand would you prefer to hold here, pocket 9s or AKs?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:21 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Huskie, you should know that the answer is always... it depends! 
Overall, I think I'd slightly prefer the AKs if I'm fairly deep-stacked, as it's more likely to dominate more hands that short stack would push with (weak aces), and less likely to be dominated. It's a moot point though depending on overall stack sizes, because in the Green Zone, it's an easy call for me with either of those hands.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:59 am GMT by UrAteUp
AK for sure. Pocket 9s is a respectable hand but I would rather take my chances with big slick any day.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:43 am GMT by Soup_dog
Really? I think I would rather have pocket 9's.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:10 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Soup_dog wrote: | | Really? I think I would rather have pocket 9's. |
I'd like to see someone pokerstove AKs vs 99 against AA-22, Ax, KQ-K9, QJ-QT, JT. That's probably a reasonable hand range. Without doing it myself, I'm guessing that with 99, you're probably going to be a small favorite or a big underdog. With AK, you're probably going to be a small dog, or a big favorite. Rarely will villain turn over AA or KK.
If you narrow the range more, I think AK plays even better.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:38 pm GMT by TxShadow
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | Soup_dog wrote: | | Really? I think I would rather have pocket 9's. |
I'd like to see someone pokerstove AKs vs 99 against AA-22, Ax, KQ-K9, QJ-QT, JT. That's probably a reasonable hand range. Without doing it myself, I'm guessing that with 99, you're probably going to be a small favorite or a big underdog. With AK, you're probably going to be a small dog, or a big favorite. Rarely will villain turn over AA or KK.
If you narrow the range more, I think AK plays even better. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you posted a hand range of around 33 hands for shorty to shove with. 99 is only a dog to 5 of those hands. Other situations either have you as a slight favorite or, for about 7 of those hands, a big favorite.
I think I'd rather have 99 honestly. If you take AK, granted you are still a favorite in most of those hands, however if he does have AA-22, that's 13 right there that you are at best only a slight dog. And he's got live cards with everything else.
I could be way off base here, and I agree with Diamond that in most situations, I'd call shorty with 99 or AK.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:43 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| TxShadow wrote: | | Correct me if I'm wrong, but you posted a hand range of around 33 hands for shorty to shove with. 99 is only a dog to 5 of those hands. Other situations either have you as a slight favorite or, for about 7 of those hands, a big favorite. |
I have no idea. You put more thought into it than I did.
| TxShadow wrote: | | I think I'd rather have 99 honestly. If you take AK, granted you are still a favorite in most of those hands, however if he does have AA-22, that's 13 right there that you are at best only a slight dog. And he's got live cards with everything else. |
Most of that hand range gives villain live cards against 99 as well. And hero is a much bigger favorite against Ax and Kx with AK than 99. As for AA and KK, hero's AK makes those holdings less likely than when he's got 99.
This is just my initial impression. I'll run the simulation when I get a chance, unless someone else would be kind enough to beat me to it and save me the trouble.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:54 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
99
| pokerstove wrote: |
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 59.9215 % 59.53% 00.39% { 99 }
Hand 2: 40.0785 % 39.69% 00.39% { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, A2o+, K9o+, QTo+, JTo } |
AKo, AKs
| pokerstove wrote: |
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 64.1534 % 61.62% 02.54% { AKs, AKo }
Hand 2: 35.8466 % 33.31% 02.54% { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, A2o+, K9o+, QTo+, JTo }
|
The question is how valid is my range of villain's pushing hands.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:24 pm GMT by Icec0o1
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | 99
| pokerstove wrote: |
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 59.9215 % 59.53% 00.39% { 99 }
Hand 2: 40.0785 % 39.69% 00.39% { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, A2o+, K9o+, QTo+, JTo } |
AKo, AKs
| pokerstove wrote: |
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 64.1534 % 61.62% 02.54% { AKs, AKo }
Hand 2: 35.8466 % 33.31% 02.54% { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, A2o+, K9o+, QTo+, JTo }
|
The question is how valid is my range of villain's pushing hands. |
Not valid enough for the 5% difference to be of any importance.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:35 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Icec0o1 wrote: | | Not valid enough for the 5% difference to be of any importance. |
Well, if you narrow the hand range, both hands lose equity although the AK probably loses a little more than the 99. I don't think you can ever reasonably narrow the range enough to make the 99 more profitable.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:44 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
AKs
| pokerstove wrote: | equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 60.5639 % 57.33% 03.23% { AKs }
Hand 2: 39.4361 % 36.20% 03.23% { 22+, A9s+, KTs+, QJs, A9o+, KTo+ } |
99
| pokerstove wrote: | equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 55.4335 % 54.92% 00.51% { 99 }
Hand 2: 44.5665 % 44.06% 00.51% { 22+, A9s+, KTs+, QJs, A9o+, KTo+ } |
You can argue against the KTo and the QJs, but then I can argue against the 22-66 as well.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:08 pm GMT by TxShadow
Thanks for the results Sean.
I guess the bottom line is that you're usually going to be ahead with either hand (again, assuming your hand range is reasonably accurate).
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:11 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| TxShadow wrote: | | I guess the bottom line is that you're usually going to be ahead with either hand (again, assuming your hand range is reasonably accurate). |
Right. The range would have to be awfully narrow to ever fold in this spot.
But I'd still rather have AK every time.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:49 pm GMT by snoogins47
| Icec0o1 wrote: | | Not valid enough for the 5% difference to be of any importance. |
Point taken. On a related note, shut up.
5% is reasonably significant, especially when the whole question is 'which is better.' Also, there's this thing in poker, where approximate hand ranges are often fairly accurate, because of the fairly small effect the addition/subtraction of a few other hands tend to have. I can handle people being dicks, but after a question is posed and somebody puts forth a reasonable amount of effort to either answer it, or if not answer it, at least provide a good bit of information with which we can work, I find it hard to want to do anything but smack you upside the head here.
Tx: Despite us having some 'real' answers now, I want to address real quick something that seems to have been overlooked in your initial analysis, just because it's something that a lot of people often overlook.
Unpaired hands are way more likely than paired hands.
Adding this into the mix, the 'common sense' analysis would probably end up giving us the 'correct,' AK answer. AK is only very rarely dominated, and performs really well against most of the unpaired big cards, which are more common.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:30 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| Icec0o1 wrote: | | Not valid enough for the 5% difference to be of any importance. |
Please supply an alternate hand range and an alternate answer then, posting a 'no you're wrong and I'm right' oneliner is useless.
And 5% equity difference is _alot_ versus a total handrange. Alot. Even if the handrange is off or not.
Posted Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:28 pm GMT by BeerWench13
I'd call shortstack with either hand, but AK is a horrible hand for me. I would have to call, but it would be a crying call knowing that that particular hand costs me more money than any other. I wouldn't think twice about either one, but I'd, personally*, prefer 99.
*Disclaimer: This a personal opinion not based on anything other than the fact that AK never seems to pay off for me.
Posted Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 pm GMT by Icec0o1
Damn, you guys need to chill out. That post wasn't ment as a "No" or "Ignore that" type of flaming like me and that guy got into a while back.
I thought it was easy to see the underlying meaning behind it...guess I was wrong. What I ment to say is that I appreciated the calculations and that the 5% difference is insignificant to me because generally, if I play against an oponent for a bit, I can put him on a much better hand range that that. Don't ask me for a better hand range, I need to play the guy to give you one. Further, I can pick up tells in that hand alone; did he look at his cards and immediately go all in? Did he smirk and wait a while...did he play with his chips first, etc.
My points was that having 9's or AK would be far less important to me in my decision to call then my reads on the specific oponent.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:27 am GMT by kainARGH
AKs simply because nearly no matter what he holds , you've got yourself ( nearly ) a coin flip , and VS many hands , you've got your opponent dominated. Like someone else said , you haveing AK means hes that much less likly to have AA or KK , and thus your a dog to NO hand ( significantly ) and you can dominate many. Also with AK , theres always that chance your holding the same hand , and yours is suited 
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:32 am GMT by BeerWench13
| Quote: | | This a personal opinion not based on anything other than the fact that AK never seems to pay off for me. |
I can retract this statement. AK actually paid off for me. I was cringing through the whole hand just knowing that I was ahead but it wouldn't hold up. Lo and behold, I was wrong and took down a huge pot. Wonders never cease!
|
|
