Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumAll Other Poker/Live Poker

splitting low pairs in pineapple

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,458
    Location
    California, USA

    Default splitting low pairs in pineapple

    Nikolai Yakovenko (@ivan_bezdomny) is the creator of the @ABCChinesePoker app and he's been tweeting about some simulations.

    Note that in these forums I tend to write blanks as X but on twitter he has no X. In other words, he tweeted this:
    ###
    Ran first-five sim for 44559 (no 3-flush) opening five, pine. Everyone's fave play /9/4455 best EV at +2.3pts +-0.4pt
    ...
    (1) All results: /9/4455 +2.3 EV +-0.4pt, /44/559 +1.6 EV +-0.4pt, /449/55 +0.9 EV +-0.4pt & just2see /4455/9 (nine in back) +0.4 EV +-0.6pt
    ###

    So he's saying that X/9/4455 is +2.3 EV which is much higher than X/44/559 at +1.6 EV.

    Intuitively I thought it was better to split low pairs but his simulator says otherwise.

    What do you guys think?
  2. #2
    Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,458
    Location
    California, USA
    I wish we had our own sim. It is important to know whether splitting low pairs has merit.
  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Nikolai Yakovenko (@ivan_bezdomny) is the creator of the @ABCChinesePoker app and he's been tweeting about some simulations.

    Note that in these forums I tend to write blanks as X but on twitter he has no X. In other words, he tweeted this:
    ###
    Ran first-five sim for 44559 (no 3-flush) opening five, pine. Everyone's fave play /9/4455 best EV at +2.3pts +-0.4pt
    ...
    (1) All results: /9/4455 +2.3 EV +-0.4pt, /44/559 +1.6 EV +-0.4pt, /449/55 +0.9 EV +-0.4pt & just2see /4455/9 (nine in back) +0.4 EV +-0.6pt
    ###

    So he's saying that X/9/4455 is +2.3 EV which is much higher than X/44/559 at +1.6 EV.

    Intuitively I thought it was better to split low pairs but his simulator says otherwise.

    What do you guys think?
    This is cool info. I posted in an earlier thread ( http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ne-196969.html ) that after long experimentation I had gone to splitting small 2-pair hands but keeping them together if the bigger pair was 88+. I don't have a simulator, but arrived at that strategy by playing 1000s of hands (and observing the results of my friend eastsidejohnny, who was breaking all 2-pair hands, in live play). But we're small-stakes players and we have no simulator. If Yakovenko has a way of running large numbers of hands and comparing the results, I'd say thanks a ton for the info, bro, and start taking his line.
  4. #4
    Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,458
    Location
    California, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by OneByPhi View Post
    This is cool info. I posted in an earlier thread ( http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ne-196969.html ) that after long experimentation I had gone to splitting small 2-pair hands but keeping them together if the bigger pair was 88+. I don't have a simulator, but arrived at that strategy by playing 1000s of hands (and observing the results of my friend eastsidejohnny, who was breaking all 2-pair hands, in live play). But we're small-stakes players and we have no simulator. If Yakovenko has a way of running large numbers of hands and comparing the results, I'd say thanks a ton for the info, bro, and start taking his line.
    It's weird though, ofc is complicated and I'm wondering if the computer in his sim plays 100% correctly. If not then this puzzle is still open. This is one of the reasons I wish we had our own sim - so we can double check things like this.
  5. #5
    One thing I don't like about this sim is it not including a FL card. Not sure if that is too resource demanding to calc or something but in his example I probably wouldn't split the pairs but would be more inclined in a 5544A deal.
  6. #6

    Default splitting pairs

    Quote Originally Posted by givememyleg View Post
    One thing I don't like about this sim is it not including a FL card. Not sure if that is too resource demanding to calc or something but in his example I probably wouldn't split the pairs but would be more inclined in a 5544A deal.
    I agree that adding an FL card makes splitting more desirable. I have been splitting small pairs as well. I am not convinced that Nikolai's simulator is perfect (mainly it seems to ignore the opponent's initial set) but it plays decently.

    The question about splitting pairs is still open but Nikolai's results give some weight to NOT splitting pairs.
  7. #7
    Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,458
    Location
    California, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by givememyleg View Post
    One thing I don't like about this sim is it not including a FL card. Not sure if that is too resource demanding to calc or something but in his example I probably wouldn't split the pairs but would be more inclined in a 5544A deal.
    I think you and stilltilting are right. We should give Nikolai more simulations where fl cards are involved. Maybe 2233Q when our opponent has already shown a deuce or a trey or both.
  8. #8

    Default a

    This is really interesting. Yeah like MMM said there are some outliers here but it's still useful data. It would be awesome if quantity could be added somehow for similar sets, but that may not be possible.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •