***** Official Dumb Questions Thread ****
If you have a poker question you think is too dumb (or too short) for its own thread, go ahead and post it here. Don't be shy!! We were all n00bs once.
If you do start a thread, that's fine too, we're pretty casual in this forum. But hopefully this thread will catch a bunch of the simpler repetitive questions that come all the time and are easily answered.
There are two resources you should be aware of, the first is the Beginners Forum Frequently Asked Questio....
There is no trolling in this thread.
The other is WCGRider's excellent Need Help? Ask me thread.
That covers a lot of ground and should get you started, but if you're still lost, confused, or have questions, this is the place to be!
Why do different lower pocket pairs have different equities against AA? for an exaple, 55 has 80.9%, but 22 has 82.2%.
No it doesn't
I played 6-card Plo hi-lo and I can't figure out why A6xxxx lost to 24xxxx for the low:
Board: 87T,T,4
I thought the the nuts, seconds nuts etc was A2, A3, A4 , A5, A6, 23,24,25 etc on this board
Can someone explain how 24 beats A6. It was online.
er, you're going to need to tell us the other cards he had, but if he has any ace, three or five, that (and his two) are both lower than your six. 87641 is higher than 87542, 87432 or 87421
I played 6-card Plo hi-lo and I can't figure out why A6xxxx lost to 24xxxx for the low:
Board: 87T,T,4
I thought the the nuts, seconds nuts etc was A2, A3, A4 , A5, A6, 23,24,25 etc on this board
Can someone explain how 24 beats A6. It was online.
sorry, his hand was 25XXXX VS A6XXXX
I don't play Omaha, but is it possible that the A doesn't count as a low card for this variant?
Why do the Raise / Call / Fold stripes have different heights at times in solvers?
I played 6-card Plo hi-lo and I can't figure out why A6xxxx lost to 24xxxx for the low:
Board: 87T,T,4
I thought the the nuts, seconds nuts etc was A2, A3, A4 , A5, A6, 23,24,25 etc on this board
Can someone explain how 24 beats A6. It was online.
Because you are wrong in what you feel the hand rankings are. It is A2, A3, 23. A5, 25, 35, A6, 26, 36, 56 etc. Every low hand here is 874xx. 23 is better than A5 as as the 3 is lower than the 5.
player a: Tc Ts As 8d
player b: Ah Ad 9h 2d
board: Ts 6s 2d Ac
odds calculator has this as 75% v 25% for top set v mid set + fd. Can someone please explain where the other 5% comes from? i have 18% for the flush outs and 2% for quads. What am I missing?
thanks
player a: Tc Ts As 8d
player b: Ah Ad 9h 2d
board: Ts 6s 2d Ac
odds calculator has this as 75% v 25% for top set v mid set + fd. Can someone please explain where the other 5% comes from? i have 18% for the flush outs and 2% for quads. What am I missing?
thanks
Get a new deck, player a has Ts and board has Ts.
player a: Tc Ts As 8d
player b: Ah Ad 9h 2d
board: Ts 6s 2d Ac
odds calculator has this as 75% v 25% for top set v mid set + fd. Can someone please explain where the other 5% comes from? i have 18% for the flush outs and 2% for quads. What am I missing?
thanks
12/52 cards known
40 cards left
player a has 9 outs for spades and 1 out for quads:
10/40 = 25%
90% of poker players are not profitable, by estimation. 9% make a bit of money; and about 1% make big bucks.
Why isn't it a valid solution (with some common sense applied) to simply call other players bets, and never worry about raising yourself (again, common sense applies)?
If 90% of players are betting their money into the loss of profit zone; then shouldn't most calls be profitable (with common sense folds added in)?
I realize there is a lot that goes into each decision, and I don't want to downplay those decisions; but on the very surface; it appears that simply calling an opponents bet should be profitable over the long term, against 90% of players.
Against such players, it's not that calling isn't profitable, it's frequently that raising is even better
90% of poker players are not profitable, by estimation. 9% make a bit of money; and about 1% make big bucks.
Why isn't it a valid solution (with some common sense applied) to simply call other players bets, and never worry about raising yourself (again, common sense applies)?
If 90% of players are betting their money into the loss of profit zone; then shouldn't most calls be profitable (with common sense folds added in)?
I realize there is a lot that goes into each decision, and I don't want to
No. Raising is absolutely necessary.
Against such players, it's not that calling isn't profitable, it's frequently that raising is even better
Oh absolutely; I'm just saying; all else being equal; and with common sense applied; it would seem an absolute fish would do better by simply calling and folding than by including raise into their game. It appears +EV on the surface; but to be completely fair; it's only a theory.
