Never worse than 2:1 with an Ace?

gwilkx · #1 (**permalink**) 03-30-2006, 02:44 PM

ok, so this has been bugging me.

on last week's WPT episode, David Pham (i think) raised with something like A8 and a player behind him moved all in. Sexton made the comment that Pham was getting 2:1 to call, and that since he had an ace in his hand he could never be worse than a 2:1 underdog, unless the other guy had AA. they even added a little graphic to the screen that repeated what Sexton said (that Pham couldn't be more than a 2:1 dog since he was holding an ace). ok, whatever - they make mistakes with the graphics all the time.

Then - Sexton made the same comment in last night's Grand Prix de Paris episode - but I think the statement is incorrect, so perhaps some of you other math junkies can put my mind at ease.

A simple case of a dominated ace is more like 5:2 and can actually be as bad as 3:1 according to the various odds calculators out there (i use the one at cardplayer.com most of the time).

For example, A8o vs AKo is about 22.5% to 73%, which is slightly worse than 3:1 according to the cardplayer calculator. Similarly, AQo vs KK comes out as at least 5:2 against.

Sexton is a great poker player and announcer, and the first time i heard him say that i just chalked it up to a mistake.

any thoughts?

gw-

plz · #2 (**permalink**) 03-30-2006, 03:00 PM

Sexton has made this observation on a number of WPT telecasts and it seems likely that he's approximating the odds, but underestimating them in a lot of cases, especially the case that you cite (i.e., Ax vs. Ay where x is higher than y). He may be loosely thinking about the general case where one player holds Ax and another holds JJ (or any pair greater than x) which is generally 70:30 in favor of the pair, or close to 2:1. But for sure he is overestimating the strength of Ax in a lot of reasonable heads-up situations.

yeltzen · #3 (**permalink**) 03-30-2006, 03:41 PM

Mike Sexton is 100% correct.
Well, except when the other guy has AK, AQ, AJ, AT, A9, A8, A7, A6, A5, A4, or A3 and you have A2.

gwilkx · #4 (**permalink**) 03-30-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeltzen

Mike Sexton is 100% correct.
Well, except when the other guy has AK, AQ, AJ, AT, A9, A8, A7, A6, A5, A4, or A3 and you have A2.

so the odds calculators are all wrong?

gw-

by the way - i just emailed Sexton about it. we'll see if he sends anything back.

plz · #5 (**permalink**) 03-30-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwilkx

so the odds calculators are all wrong?

gw-

by the way - i just emailed Sexton about it. we'll see if he sends anything back.

I think Yeltzen is making a joke. Clearly, A8 offsuit is a 71:28 (about 2.5:1) underdog vs. KK - this is easy to calculate directly without needing any of the odds calculating websites. I guess it depends on whether or not you think that 2.5:1 is approximately 2:1.

yeltzen · #6 (**permalink**) 03-30-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plz

I think Yeltzen is making a joke.

I know it was tough to pick up on!

gwilkx · #7 (**permalink**) 03-30-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeltzen

I know it was tough to pick up on!

i guess that's what i get for chip-talking when i'm supposed to be working . . .

gw-

anyone want to lay odds on Sexton writing me back?

yeltzen · #8 (**permalink**) 03-30-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwilkx

i guess that's what i get for chip-talking when i'm supposed to be working . . .

gw-

anyone want to lay odds on Sexton writing me back?

What would be more appropriate than... 2:1!
His reply will be like:
"Blah blah blah blah blah BOLD AGGRESSIVE PLAY blah blah blah blah BOLD AGGRESSIVE PLAY"