I want to pass along a concept which has been discussed and explained before, but perhaps not in clear form. This will be posted in several forums on Leggo; hopefully it's good and people question and comment.
I like definitions. By defining things, you can then classify future observations into categories. Taking a categorical approach in a game (like poker!) is important since there are limited branches on the decision-tree, so to speak. When one has solved (in a limited capacity) a certain branch, you begin to see a branch reappear in the future. Thus, one builds towards greater optimal play.
In my book, I define (for
river play) something called "absolute strength" vs "relative strength". This concept is applicable to all streets, truly, but is most important for river decisions. i.e. people ask "is my hand good enough to call," "can I value bet," "should I turn this into a bluff", etc. I'm going to define those terms in plain-speak, and bring it back to the flop, as it belongs to the title.
Absolute Strength: This is the 1st rule of learning poker. What beats what. Straight flush > quads > full house > flush > straight > trips > 2 pair > 1 pair > high card. When a person looks at how their hand connects to the board, at any point in time you can have one of those following hands. For example, 87o on a K K 7 3 2r board is 2 pair. But we know all this.
Relative Strength: This is an advanced state of thinking that even
some winners at mid-limits fail to grasp. In the previous example, yes, we have 2 pair; but how good is our relative hand strength? Can we value bet? Do we have a bluff catcher? Clearly the play of the hand up to that decision can change relative strength (especially opponent tendencies!) but the gist is although we have 2 pair, there are no possible straights or flushes. Ok, that's good to know. We have a "stronger" 2 pair. But there is a pair on the board; in a classical sense, we think of our hand as 1 pair. And so on/so forth.
It's hard to say exactly how strong 87o is on a K K 7 3 2 board, since again the play of the hand and our opponent could change our hand from an easy value bet (HU vs a loose drooler where the pot is small) to a maybe bluff catcher (SH vs an aggressive reg where the pot is mid) to basically air (FR vs a nitty opener where the pot somehow got big). But on the flop, when we start to build hand values (moving from absolute to relative) we can certainly classify play of hands. I do want to add here (could be out of place) absolute hand strength is not unimportant. Poker is
not all about relative strength. Don't get me wrong, it's almost all about relative strength, edges, advantages, etc. but in terms of exploitability, combinatorics, and evaluating individual play, absolute strength does have its place. So let's not forget that.
So, we are on the button multitabling a bunch of SH games and sitting out at a few HU tables because no one will play us. We could play a bunch more tables but we're also watching The Wire (S3) on our other monitor. We're trying to grind, perhaps killing time until it's basketball time at 7. We get 62o on the button on a not-so-good table filled with regs, but at least there are no shortstackers. What the hell, the regs in the blinds are tight, we aren't in a hand on any other table, let's blind steal. We make it 3x.
The big blind, a reg who very possibly could also be doing the same thing we're doing with regard to dual monitors grinding The Wire, calls out of the BB. We have a million HUD stats displayed, but we laugh since we never use them to base an important decision, since no one really knows what they mean. We don't have notes on him, either, since those stats have replaced note-taking; who cares how he played a specific hand when we can detail his exact history according to his %s on a popup? In this case, he 3bets about 9% of the time, we assume he's position-sensitive, playing about a 22/18 so somewhat snug but hardly a rock, and has 110ish BBs, but you cover.
Oh, we don't just have 62o; we have 6
2
. I like black and blue together. The 4-color deck is pretty important, especially if you can only focus a little bit, making a color-misread is costly. (Minor digression: I converted to the 4-color deck last year because I made ONE mistake thinking I had a flush. It cost me a stack. I thought, "wow, this is stupid, I don't mind the 4-color deck, and had I had one this entire time, I would be a little bit wealthier." So, if you don't use a 4-color deck, do it, because eventually you will make a red flush or a black flush, and you will lose money because both absolute and relative strength spots do not include those type of flushes)
The flop brings out the A
Q
6
. We realize we have bottom pair (1 pair, absolute strength) with a very weak and unimportant backdoor fdraw. I typically advocate to students your hand in this position is completely irrelevant until your opponent makes an aggressive action, but since we're classifying how strong our hand is, (and the entire point of this article) we get to play the hypothetical game. Our opponent checks, and since you never have seen him donk bet in this spot (most don't incorporate that into their game, I think, and it's not even that much of a mistake to not be capable of donking here) his range is simply narrowed from whatever he chose to call 2 bbs more, although we know he's position sensitive, not afraid to repop a button opener, and fairly snug.
Some people would check in our spot, (they polarize by checking Qx sometimes, JJ-77 more often, and 6x VERY often; removing marginal hands, or, what they think, are hands that relatively speaking play well in small to mid pots but poorly in mid to large pots) but I think that's firmly wrong. I mean, I check back flops often, and when I do I generally have good reasons, but THIS is a bad spot for it. And I'll explain why:
We have the nuts! Let's play the hand-reading game. Poker is incomplete information, so it would be impossible (at this point, anyway) to declare a specific (or VERY NARROW) range for the opponent we described at this juncture in the hand. We feel our opponent will reraise AA/QQ given we're opening the button and not shallow 100% of the time. He is not mixing it up, and probably would be wrong to do so. (With no one to act in order to trap a squeeze) Same applies to AK and AQ, although it's not completely impossible AQ is smooth called. There is no way our opponent is playing A6o, (some would fold A6s, but this guy isn't a nit and I think for 2bbs more, it's in opponent's range) but since the ace and six are different, there are 2 combinations of A6s. Our opponent cannot have Q6o/s, so that leaves 1 combo of 66 (if it's not reraised, which COULD happen).
In other words, for our opponent to checkraise, and for us to be behind in an absolute sense (relative edges get murky when you deal with equities, and the fact that it could be correct for a draw to not fold and for a made hand to not fold; in other words, both make money from the "dead" money in the pot) he needs 3 combinations specifically. Or, we need to feel he is capable of taking a pure-value line with a less-than-absolute monster. (Sets/2pair) Since we remove the nut TPTK from his range (divine AK) it leaves AJ (9 offsuit, 3 suited) or AT (9o, 3s). Almost inconceivable our opponent could have A9o, but also the worse their situational ace, the less likely they are to checkraise for value. Hell, I don't even believe as a standard opponents are checkraising AT here (whether they should or should not is a different discussion). If we think half the time they reraise AJ (no idea why "half" the time but we're using reasonable estimates here) and half the time they don't c/r, that leaves 3 total combinations of Ax that are played aggressively. (Or, they think they have the nut hand) It's worth noting we don't REALLY have the nuts, for those that are questioning my stance; vs. that balanced range (6 combos in all) we have just under 12% equity. Since even if we pot the flop, we actually require 45% equity in sum to have a hand worth backing on the flop. And if our opponents range, no matter how narrowed due to combinatorics is just that, we should be folding with ease.
But the gist, and hopefully why this is important, is against that range, 62o is the
same hand as AT!
Quote:
Board: As Qd 6d
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 11.902% 11.85% 00.05% 704 3.00 { 6s2d }
Hand 1: 88.098% 88.05% 00.05% 5230 3.00 { 66, A6s, AcJd, AcJh, AdJh }
|
Quote:
oard: As Qd 6d
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 13.615% 09.19% 04.42% 637 306.50 { AhTc }
Hand 1: 86.385% 81.96% 04.42% 5680 306.50 { 66, A6s, AcJd, AcJh, AdJh }
|
Yeah, pretty sick eh? Relatively speaking, we should be treating AT as the same hand as 62. (AK is actually a notch stronger since it has slightly more equity vs AJ; and even if a person IS nittier/so on so forth, it's hard to build a compelling argument against all your chips at some point hitting the pot if you do so happen to have it). But, if you aren't itching to put money in with 62, you probably shouldn't with AT either. Logically, if we're treating AT as the nuts... Then... so is 62.
I want to point out that no, they are not the same hand, and the major reason is AT actually has a fair amount more equity vs draws (generally overcards exist vs the absolute power of a pair of sixes that are impossible vs a pair of aces). There are other notes as well, but that's all for now.
Why 62o is the nuts on A Q 6.
Linear Mode
