Actuary
Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 4:58 PM
QUOTE (copernicus @ Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 3:43 PM)

The main difference is that AJ is only dominated by AA, KK, QQ, AK and AQ, 34 hands, while AT is dominated by AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ and AJ, 56 hands...a pretty significant increase.
Also when you do hit TPTK, AT is facing 9 outs against K,Q,Js, while AJ is only facing 6 outs, so a scare card on the turn is (more than 33%) less frequent.
I think it was Cloutiers (maybe DB) starting hand analysis where he said AK is solid, AQ is very good, AJ takes a big drop and "AT is falling off the cliff".
AJ has 12 combos, not 16, when we hold AT
Edit: in fact isn't it 39 and 57 ?
However I like the explanation
I'm not sure why it's drawn at AT though.
You could do similar for AQ vs AJ.
I'll fold ATo utg and limp A8s from UTG in 1st level
wanna fight about it?
*****************
theriin,
we're not debating the fact everyone has a comfort/cutoff.
It's just the emphaticness that's offputting.
I think it's more gradual and dependent that just AJ yes, AT no.
QUOTE (Actuary @ Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 4:50 PM)

AJ has 12 combos, not 16, when we hold AT
Edit: in fact isn't it 39 and 57 ?
However I like the explanation
I'm not sure why it's drawn at AT though.
You could do similar for AQ vs AJ.
I'll fold ATo utg and limp A8s from UTG in 1st level
wanna fight about it?
*****************
theriin,
we're not debating the fact everyone has a comfort/cutoff.
It's just the emphaticness that's offputting.
I think it's more gradual and dependent that just AJ yes, AT no.
****************
how does KK dominate AJ if JJ doesn't ?
Now I get 42 and 60
AA-JJ dominate both
Add AJ and TT to the AT side and 3 more JJ's