**Poker Digest Vol. 3, No. 14, June 30 - July 13, 2000**

Recently, the following e-mail message came to *Poker Digest* from
James Grosjean. I thank him for the message and included my response
in this article.

Dear editors,

It may be a bit late to bring up, but I must comment on the ``Cracking
Aces: Part II'' article in the``Mathematics and Poker With Brian Alspach''
column of the April 7-20 (Vol. 3/No. 8) issue of *Poker Digest*.

First, he says, ``... there is a 31.1 percent chance of winning with pocket aces against nine random hands played to the end.'' Later, ``the value .311, the probability of winning with pocket aces with nine opponents who stay all the way to the end, provides a lower bound in the following sense. Suppose you are dealt a pair of pocket aces against nine opponents.

If no one folds before the hand is played out, then the outcome is predetermined .... So at this juncture the probability you will win at the end of the hand is .311, and you will not do worse than this in the long-run ...''

When dealt pocket aces against nine opponents, if no one folds, then you
are *not* playing against nine random hands. In a live game, if
faced with nine opponents, the fact that they have
*chosen* to play allows you to infer
that (assuming that their decision to play is ``normal'' in the sense that
it correlates to better hands, i.e., they are not complete morons playing
a perverse strategy) they hold good hands, such as wired pairs, connectors,
and suited cards. Then, the 0.311 figure is overly optimistic.

Neglecting
your ability to subsequently bet opponents out of the pot, the 0.311 would
be an *upper* bound, not a lower bound. Considering the effect of your
opponents' responses to your aggressive betting, the 0.311 would be no bound
of any kind, but merely a benchmark.

The critical fact is that Dr. Alspach has, at least in the first page of the article, confused the live, non-random choice of nine opponents, with the computer-simulated, forced play (and hence equivalent to random hands) of nine opponents. At the very end, he starts to allude to this point, suggesting that if we could program nine ``realistic'' opponents, we could then estimate, through simulation, the probability of winning with pocket aces when the nine opponents have chosen to play to the end. The figure would be clearly below 0.311. Keep up the good work.

James Grosjean

Mr. Grosjean has paid much closer attention to my wording than I did and he is perfectly justified in interpreting the sentence containing the phrase ``If no one folds before the hand is played out'' as he did. However, in my defense, let me explain that I intended this to still be the random case. That is, when I talked about no one folding before the the hand was played out, I was thinking of this in terms of the following. Our hero finds pocket aces and she, together with all nine opponents, turn their hands face up. The dealer now properly deals the board cards with no further player action. The player has a probability of .311 of winning the hand. (We are assuming .311 is very accurate based on simulations because exact enumeration is computationally infeasible.)

This means a player who plays all pocket aces all the way to the end will
win approximately 31.1 perecnt of these hands. The figure of 31.1 percent
*is* a lower
bound in the sense that a player with pocket aces who takes strong betting
action and stays to the end *will* win more than 31.1 percent of the
hands because
some of the weak hands which would have won the pot will have folded.

Now let's get realistic about a lower bound for the percentage of pots won with pocket aces. Suppose as a player you would like to win the highest possible percentage of pots when holding pocket aces. If you follow an algorithm of staying all the way to the end, and betting and raising aggressively, you will definitely win at least 31.1 percent of the pots.

However, it's impossible to know what the percentage might be as it clearly depends on the players in the game. The more players in the game who are willing to throw away risky hands, the more the percentage will increase.

It also is clear that staying all the way to the end is a foolish algorithm to follow. There are going to be times when you are almost certain you are beat and staying to the end just because you have aces is going to cost you more pots than you would gain. This makes the problem even more hopeless because as soon as you are willing to toss the aces under certain conditions, the 31.1% is no longer a lower bound because you might mistakenly throw away more winning hands than losing hands. I suspect most reasonable players will have a net gain in percentage of pots won by being willing to throw their aces, but measuring the gain is impossible.

If you do not know what a tree (mathematical version) is, you might not
gain much beyond this point. There are several ways we can model the
process of what happens as a tree, where the root of the tree is our
hero finding pocket aces and the leaves of the tree are all possible
outcomes. We know that 31.1 percent of the leaves have a *W* for the player
and the remaining leaves have an *L* for the player. Returning to the
interpretation Mr. Grosjean discussed in his message, if the player
is in the situation where all the other nine players have chosen to
bet, call or raise, then she is at some internal vertex of the tree.
The possible outcomes available for the player are those leaves lying
in the subtree below her current location in the tree. The percentage
of available leaves with a *W* no longer need be 31.1 percent as he correctly
writes. Given reasonable players, it is highly likely it is strictly
less. It is very difficult to say what the percentage is because this
tree is dynamic in that it changes according to the other nine players.
These problems are extremely difficult although simulation can give
some valuable information.

Home | Publications | Preprints | MITACS | Poker Digest | Poker Computations | Feedback

website by the Centre for Systems Science

last updated 4 September 2001