Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Quickie

Maybe I missed a memo that redefined the term "dominated" in poker. Last I checked, if you have KQ and you opponent has AK, you're dominated. Why? Because you share a card, but one of you has a better kicker, hence making that shared card all but useless to the one with the lower partner.

If you have JJ, and you meet KQ, the KQ IS NOT DOMINATED. Yes, the JJ is a favourite, but it isn't dominating a damned thing. JJ vs JT is dominating, but no shared card = no domination. Ditto for JJ vs TT, the TT isn't dominated.

Just thought I'd clear that up, since the term has been misused regularly for the past while.

Guin said...

TT is dominated by all higher pocket pairs.... only 20% chance to win is domination.

Astin said...

No, domination is when you have a shared rank and are outkicked. I've seen this "lower pocket pair dominated by a higher one" for awhile, but it isn't the proper definition (although it's creeping into it for NLHE, so it's becoming accepted by misuse). Yes, it makes you a severe underdog, but not "dominated". My real problem is that the term is starting to get used in even MORE situations - like 77 dominating AQo, which it clearly isn't.