Re: [ba-poker] You've got to know when to fold 'em

[Jeffrey Siegal <jbs(deleted the rest)>]

On Dec 6, 2004, at 15:40, Jerrod Ankenman wrote:

> > > Now I'm not 100% sure about the implied play advantage, but it seems 
> > > with these hands particularly, KQ is going to get paid off by AK 
> > > more often than 82o is, since there are many more boards like AJT, 
> > > KQx, and the like than there are boards like A88, K82, etc.
> > You're ignoring AK getting paid off a lot more by KQ on boards like 
> > K96.
>
> I must have misunderstood "if my opponent flashes AK."

No, what I'm saying is that *you're* going to end up paying off a lot 
more often with KQ, having flopped a pair, than you are with 82, having 
flopped a pair.  Hopefully you don't go broke with it, and that's good, 
but you're going to lose more chips more often.

With 82, you *can* flop a pair, be up against an overpair, and lose, 
but that's less common.  With KQ, you might be up against AK (12 ways), 
AQ (12 ways), AA (6), KK (3) and QQ (3, though you'll usually win here 
if you flop a pair).  Let's call that 33 ways.  Each possible overpair 
is 6 ways, so that's 5 1/2 overpairs.   Against AA, KK and maybe QQ, 
you'll certainly get spanked often enough (18 ways), but with anything 
lower than that, your opponent will often not like his hand, often 
won't play it very strongly and often won't play it very well.  You'll 
also flop two pair more often against an overpair than you will against 
a hand that outkicks yours.

> I'm just going to reiterate my position that people who play 82o for 
> advertising value are hosing when they do that.

No argument there.  I just don't think that KQ is *always* better than 
82.