Can anyone answer this one?

[asoriga]

I would appreciate it if anybody can clear this up for me. Is there a point in which not playing enough hands hurts your winning percentage. I know if I consistently fold AA and QQ, I will be losing money in the long run. Basically, which hands are must play and which hands are just strongly recommended but one isn't really losing money by not playing them. If I decided to play just AA-JJ(TT?), AK, and AQ would I be losing money. Those hands dont come up too often so would the blinds make this an unprofittable strategy. I know playing too many hands can really hurt a player but is the opposite also true? Could not playing enough hands ever be an unprofittable strategy?

[top2pear]

Seriously? Of course, even if there's no seat charge and no blinds and no ante. You need to read (or reread) *Theory of Polka* by Sklansky.

If you limit yourself to playing only the short list you provide, even the dumbest players at the table will figure it out quickly and will be able to outplay you on any flop, turn, river--as if they were looking at your cards with you.

Suppose you get the miracle AA and everyone else at the table is already on to your hand selection. You reraise from second position and 3 people call you: the initial raiser has KK (and he's hoping you have AK), the button has QQ (and position), and the big blind has TT; they're all just hoping the flop gives them a piece and they'll milk your aces. A flop without an Ace isn't as frequent as you'd like when you hold two of them already. So if it's KJ7 rainbow, the only people who will play back at you will have a much better hand than yours. If they've all missed the flop completely (like three babies of different suits) and you come out betting, they're all just gonna fold and you win the minimum.

So playing TOO tight hurts your expectation. And since there's always an ante and/or blinds and/or a seat charge, you're paying to see each round of cards. If the rate per round seems low enough to justify waiting for only the hands you listed, you still might not get any benefit from playing them as i tried to detail above.

Someone more strategical than me could provide you with numbers etc. Someone like Sklansky, who already wrote a book with all this logic in it.

[Big Jon]

This is easy. You are losing money whenever you don't play a hand that has +EV from the seat you are in. Calculating that is more difficult, but check the Party Poker charts.

[asoriga]

Im not so much worried about people gettin a read on me because of the abundance of horrible players online who really dont not pick up on stuff like that, I will have the occasional BB, SB special or the on the button KQs to mix it up a little. I'm more worried about the blinds.

ps - I dont really apply this strategy, Im just a newbie whos tryin to get a better understandin of the game.

[tech]

[ QUOTE ]
check the Party Poker charts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean the ones for Pokerroom? Does Party make these available as well?

[Big Jon]

Yeah, those are the ones. Not Party. My mistake.

[MicroBob]

playing too few hands will also be a loser in the long-run also. the blinds will eat you up (even if it's all stupid players who never catch on).

your strategy sounds kind of similar to hellmuth's limit strategy which has widely been dismissed as completely idiotic.


you should read Hold Em Poker by David Sklansky.
some would also recommend Winning Low Limit hold-em by Lee Jones. i think someone in your situation would benefit from WLLHE.

also....swing by the beginners forum under general gambling and maybe also the micro-limit forum and read through some of the threads there. there is much to be learned.
welcome to the forums....time to get started with your education.