Re: 22 better than 33?

[Linda K Sherman]

O-PGManager wrote:
> http://www.worldzone.net/company/elpasochance/nf001020.html
>
> This chart is a no foldem table documenting the results of each 2 card
> hands performance over 400 million hands of holdem. It ranks them all.
>
> 51. 22
> 52. 33
>
> How can 22 possibly perform better? The 3's make one more straight than
> 22 and obviously are a higher pair. Am I missing something obvious? (If so
> please go easy on me.) Is 400 million not a big enough sample size? I
> don't think so.

The chart's wrong.

33 is slightly better than 22, for the reasons you stated.

The chart at www.gocee.com\poker ranks 33 higher than 22. My own
simulation software ranks 33 slightly higher.

Lin

[Stephen Gorrell]

> The chart's wrong.
>
> 33 is slightly better than 22, for the reasons you stated.
>
> The chart at www.gocee.com\poker ranks 33 higher than 22. My own
> simulation software ranks 33 slightly higher.
>
> Lin
>
I ran it on my own sim just for fun, and 33 did better than 22. What was
interesting however was that any two random cards also do better than 22
when both are played to showdown. Player 01 was 2s2h, player 02 was any 2
cards.

Won/Lost/Tied/Folded (1,000,000 runs)
Player 01: W[ 48.67%] L[ 49.46%] T[ 1.88%] F[ 0.00%]
Player 02: W[ 49.46%] L[ 48.67%] T[ 1.88%] F[ 0.00%]

--Steve

[A. Prock]

According to Stephen Gorrell <sgorrell@pacbell.net>:
>> The chart's wrong.
>>
>> 33 is slightly better than 22, for the reasons you stated.
>>
>> The chart at www.gocee.com\poker ranks 33 higher than 22. My own
>> simulation software ranks 33 slightly higher.
>>
>> Lin
>>
>I ran it on my own sim just for fun, and 33 did better than 22. What was
>interesting however was that any two random cards also do better than 22
>when both are played to showdown. Player 01 was 2s2h, player 02 was any 2
>cards.
>
>Won/Lost/Tied/Folded (1,000,000 runs)
>Player 01: W[ 48.67%] L[ 49.46%] T[ 1.88%] F[ 0.00%]
>Player 02: W[ 49.46%] L[ 48.67%] T[ 1.88%] F[ 0.00%]

You might want to check your code for bugs:

PokerStove outputs:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 50.3340 % [ 49.39 00.95 ] { 2s2h }
Hand 2: 49.6660 % [ 48.72 00.95 ] { random }


As a sanity check, I used Steve Brecher's HoldEm Showdown to
verify the numbers:

HoldEm Showdown version 2001Oct31.0 written by Steve Brecher
Deals all possible boards to get exact win probability for each hand specified.
Results written/appended to "SHOWDOWN.TXT".

For general help, type "help" or just "h" followed by Return or Enter.
For help with a specific response, type "?" followed by Return or Enter.

Known hole cards; two per player: 2s 2h
Number of players with unknown hole cards (0 to 2) [0]: 1
Known board cards [none]:
Dead/exposed cards [none]:
2,097,572,400 deals required. Start dealing? (y/n) [y]: y

2s2h Unknown
% chance of outright win 49.385176 48.717138
% chance of win or split 51.282862 50.614824
expected return, % of pot 50.334019 49.665981
fair pot odds:1 0.986728 1.013451
pots won: 1055792492.001041779908.00


- Andrew

--
http://www.pokerstove.com

[greg pittman]

http://www.worldzone.net/company/elpasochance/nf001020.html


I used these charts to come up with a power rating for starting hands.
It is pretty simplistic, and seems not to deviate plus or minus 1 %.
Here it is, if anyone is interested.

A = 15.5 pts
K = 13 pts
Q = 11 pts
J = 9.5 pts
10 = 8.5 pts
9 = 7.5 pts
8 = 7 pts
7= 6.7 pts
6 = 6.4 pts
5 =6 pts
4 = 6 pts
3 = 6 pts
2 = 6 pts

1) If you have a pair double the pts., AA would be 31 pts, and this is
the win % of AA at a 10 handed game according to that site. The same
goes for the rest. I know 55 is better than 22, but I was trying to keep
as easy as possible.

2) If pair is suited add 4 pts, e.g. AKs, 10-6s etc.

3) Spacing:

a) If no spacing between cards add 1 pt, that is AK, KQ etc

b) If there is one space subtract 1 pt, ( KJ, AQ etc)

c) if there are 2 spaces subtract 2 pts (AJ, K10 etc)

d) if 3 spaces subtract 3 pts

e) if 4 spaces subtract 4 pts

f) if 5 spaces subtract 5 pts

g) if more than 5 spaces subtract 7 pts.

Don't use use spacing with the Ace card as low, A2, A3, etc,

4) If high card is K, Q, J, 10 add 1 pt

5) If you can make a straight and high card is from Q>5 , with at least
1 space add 1 pt.

6) If you have Q-J-10-9-8-7, coupled with the 5-4-3-2 add 1 pt

That's all, if or example ,if you have A ,10s

it would be 15.5 +4 (suited) - 3 (spacing) =16.5. This number would be
your approximate percentage to win the hand in 10 handed poker. On the
website, out of 400 million hands it was 16.6%.
I would guess if a person is playing tight,he would be betting 15 pts or
better.

[Michael Langford]

<snip yet-another-holdem-hand-ranking-system>

Hutchinson's is simpler and more of the same:
http://erh2.homestead.com/hem.html

Systems and stuff like this are fine for helping absolute beginners to
remember cards that are OK to play, however I would have to say you
need to know what your hopes and dreams are for every hand that you
would deign to take to the flop, before you ever think to call or
raise with that hand. The say you realize how utterly shitty KQ can be
is the day you've started to understand starting hands and the quirky
individuals they are.

You have to know that you want an ace to flop when you have AQ, but
you want to be facing a single opponent playing something like Axs or
AJ, definitly not AK/AKs.

You have to know that you're looking for a 3rd 9 if you're taking 99
into the Flop and you're playing at a really loose passive table: very
rarely will a measly pair of nines take it down when there are 6
people on the flop with you who have a penchant for calling.

I'd have to say if you don't know under what conditions a hand plays
well, you're shot unless you just happen to hit a table that suits
your SH table perfectly. Many people aren't lucky enough to get that
conjuntion of events. They will attempt to use Phil Helmuth's SH
requirements at a party .5/1 table, or they will try to use Kreiger's*
(PfD) starting hand requirements at a 4/8 Bellagio table. They will
lose half a buy in at a LLH game, then they will tighten up like a
skunk on smack. Then they play tight, get a good pocket pair cracked,
go on tilt, then lose another buy-in and a half.

I'd love to read/write a book were starting hands are talked about
each individually, all of them with statistics and things of that
nature. Then when Sklansky says something about hand X, you can go,
"Oh, that's applicable at the 10-20 level in a tight-aggressive game,
but its totally opposite of what you should do in a loose aggressive
game with unsophisticated players. I do see his point of WHY he says
that, so now can look for the proper game conditions to take advantage
of that tidbit later."

--Michael

*He even admit's they are a tad loose for a newbie. The rest of the
book is a good starter though.

PS: If any of you published guys are interested in doing this, I'd
happily do the statistics and other grunt work of the title, if you'd
do the nuances of middle-upper level play. I'm picturing it being in a
niche like "Book of Holdem Odds" where its a good buy for all
technicial minded folk in poker. A good deal of new, surviving players
fit that mold.