9/6 DDB strategy
Obviously AA is more valuable because AAAA gets the larger payout. But I don't see the difference between KK and QQ.
Quote: AxiomOfChoicePossibly a stupid question... but in the 9/6 DDB basic strategy, why is KK worth more than QQ or JJ?
Obviously AA is more valuable because AAAA gets the larger payout. But I don't see the difference between KK and QQ.
It's not. It is just broken up that way to show TJQs is more valuable than JJ or QQ but not KK.
Quote: AxiomOfChoicePossibly a stupid question... but in the 9/6 DDB basic strategy, why is KK worth more than QQ or JJ?
Obviously AA is more valuable because AAAA gets the larger payout. But I don't see the difference between KK and QQ.
The Kings are both straight penalty cards to the 10-J-Q Royal if they happen to all be in the same hand. If they are not in the same hand, JJ QQ and KK would have the same EV.
Quote: DRich
It's not. It is just broken up that way to show TJQs is more valuable than JJ or QQ but not KK.
No, TJQ is more valuable than KK if three to a Royal, just not when it is TJQ (suited) AND KK (both Kings offsuit). That's why it put the Kings up there, if you have TJQ(suited)KK(off) you hold the Kings, if you have that with a second Queen or Jack, you hold TJQ suited.
Quote: DRichIt's not. It is just broken up that way to show TJQs is more valuable than JJ or QQ but not KK.
I don't understand that. If E(KK) > E(TJQs) and E(TJQs) > E(QQ) then it follows that E(KK) > E(QQ). But it seems to me that E(KK) = E(QQ).
Is this a penalty card thing? If so, what are the penalty cards?
Ts, Js, Qs, Kh, Kd
Hold Kh and Kd
It is the only time the Kings are worth more than the TJQ three-to-a-royal, otherwise, the Royal draw is worth more. QQ and JJ have the same value as KK, but are not straight penalty cards with TJQ suited.
Quote: Mission146The Kings are both penalty cards to the 10-J-Q Royal if they happen to all be in the same hand. If they are not in the same hand, JJ QQ and KK would have the same EV.
If they are penalty cards against the Royal, wouldn't you need to have 4 to the Royal? Eg, JTQKs+K.
I guess the KK is a penalty card against the straight.
Quote: Mission146The Kings are both penalty cards on a Straight if KK and TJQ (suited) are in the same hand:
Ts, Js, Qs, Kh, Kd
Hold Kh and Kd
It is the only time the Kings are worth more than the TJQ three-to-a-royal, otherwise, the Royal draw is worth more.
Ok, thanks, this makes sense.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/hand-analyzer/
That has to be the reason why, because KK, QQ and JJ have the same value.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't understand that. If E(KK) > E(TJQs) and E(TJQs) > E(QQ) then it follows that E(KK) > E(QQ). But it seems to me that E(KK) = E(QQ).
You can't make assumptions like this when dealing with poker-based games. There is a situation in Bonus Poker where three plays present a cyclical situation where (A > B) and (B > C) but (C > A). This occurs in starting hands for Texas Hold'em as well. Someone's signature on this forum has (or used to have) an example of this, listing three Hold'em starting hands followed by "You choose first."
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIs this a penalty card thing? If so, what are the penalty cards?
With TJQ-J-x or TJQ-Q-x, the x determines the strategy. If x is the same suit as the TJQ (a Flush penalty), or x is an offsuit Ace, King, or Nine (certain Straight penalties), then hold the pair; otherwise hold the TJQ. (But obviously if you have 4 to a Straight Flush or 4 to a Royal Flush, then hold those 4 cards.)
Quote: JBYou can't make assumptions like this when dealing with poker-based games. There is a situation in Bonus Poker where three plays present a cyclical situation where (A > B) and (B > C) but (C > A).
Just to make sure that I understand correctly... this effect is solely because of penalty cards, right?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceJust to make sure that I understand correctly... this effect is solely because of penalty cards, right?
It is in the Bonus Poker situation.
Quote: JBIt is in the Bonus Poker situation.
I don't know what that means.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't know what that means.
In the Bonus Poker situation (I don't remember the specifics, but I did write about it in a recent thread), it was caused by plays existing in the same hand, so I suppose you could say that it was due to penalty cards.
