Using Wilson's Hold'em To Design Starting hands

[Brandon J. Fuchs]

I've ran over 100 million hands in wilson's software based on almost every user profile imaginable and have come to these conclusions -> Only AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ suited or unsuited, or pocket pairs 9 and above, as well as Suited A9,A10, QJ, Q10, J10, K9, K10, are profitable hands. The rest should be discarded no matter what. Surely this goes with sklansky saying to play certain hand groups but this is one step farther. Some hands are just not profitable so by discarding J10 offsuit, K10 offsuit, A10 offsuit, 9,10 suited, etc.... you can add to your bankroll since these hands are big losers in the long run. anyone care to comment?

[geek]

If my math is correct, these hands will give you a VP$IP of 10.8%. That seems low. I recall someone posting a fairly large sampled dataset from PokerTraker of opponents EV versus VP$IP. My recollection is that EV peaked with a VP$IP of around 21%. Can't find that thread now however, so my memory may be off.

[BigJer]

[ QUOTE ]
The rest should be discarded no matter what.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Some hands are just not profitable so by discarding J10 offsuit, K10 offsuit, A10 offsuit, 9,10 suited, etc....

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you need to state some assumptions regarding number of opponents. You wouldn't play AToffsuit if you were heads-up, or in the small blind and everyone folds to you?

[Leavenfish]

Over reliance on any simulation is dangerous. It's a game of human beings with no one correct way to play many hands-- and most of your profit is going to come from post-flop play not wether you play JT offsuit. These types of post must amuse the poker gods, however.

[mistrpug]

I'm thinking that just because a hand has an overall -EV, doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be played. Maybe my logic is off here, but this is what I'm thinking:

If you never played a hand, your EV would be -7.5 Big Bets/100 (SB + BB 10 times) Those hands you mentioned (AA, KK, QQ...) are all good enough to have +EV when you play them, but ones just below that do not. However, playing those second tier hands give you less -EV even though overall it's still not +EV.

I'll try to explain a little further... ATo is -EV overall. If you played 100 hands and got ATo everytime, your BB/100 would be -7.5 (actually not quite since you will probably hit some flops with a free play in the BB). Just because playing that ATo "optimally" 100 times won't make it +EV overall, doesn't mean it's wrong to play it. Your BB/100 should be raised to close to 0 BB/100, which is good.

I hope that makes a little sense, and that I'm not totally off-base here.

[deception5]

I think that you would be excluding too many hands with this. Forgive me if this is really obvious, but one of the simplest counterexamples I can come up with is pocket pairs below 9. If you can limp in with these 8 times you'll hit the set once on average. The implied odds you get (since you can then raise on the flop, turn, and river) should more than make up for the price of getting to the flop 8 times.

[mmbt0ne]

That's what I was thinking. I don't think it takes into account the fact that you won't put any money into a pot with 55, and 3 overcards on the flop, and you will bet it strong if you manage to flop a set or quads. As long as you play the hands correctly, there is a much larger list of what can be profitable.

[PokerSlut]

I believe you're talking about the Shania (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=holdem&Number=533592&Forum =,,All_Forums,,&Words=&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Main= 533592&Search=true&where=&Name=81&daterange=&newer val=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Pos t533592).

[Senor Choppy]

Are you running these sims for all positions at once? The only correct way to go about this is to freeze the button, run x number of hands, then freeze the button at a different spot, and repeat.

Saying hand y is unprofitable overall is meaningless. It's its profitability in a given spot at the table that you're looking for.

If you still get these same results after adjusting for position, you're giving too much credit to players by specifying a lineup in TTH that's much too tight, or you're still making faulty assumptions somewhere.

[Bez]

If you only played these hands you'd be very easy to read and get little action.

[mikimaus]

It's a good tool for getting the most correct hands for every type of limit holdem game and situation. It's just that one needs to use it well, understand everything well, and that's not there for a start, one needs all kinds of experience and knowledge, but it's still the god for limit holdem preflop strategy. Note Abdul's site, that's possibly still there (and linked from Wilson's website). There are also pokerroom.com stats you find from their site to compare to.

[Doubling12]

I have done simulations as you suggest. The hands I get are quite different than the ones listed at the top of the thread, and of course are dependant on position, the action before you (unopened, called, raised, 3+ bets), and the particular lineup you choose - even your seat at the table (MP is different when Gypsy is in EP, for example). Doing the study properly is enlightening - you can see how pp's are more playable in LAG games, and suited cts are more playable in loose passive games, etc. without having to take someone's word for it.

[Wahoo91]

and of course are dependant on position, the action before you (unopened, called, raised, 3+ bets)

I was going to mention these things as well. Some hands have an overall negative EV when played from "every" position, but 98s from late position with many callers up front and no raise expected behind should be a +EV call.

How were these scenarios modeled?

[Doubling12]

I took Bret Maverick, and replaced his starting hand pages (all 25 of them) with naive strategies. So, for B1C56, Bret will only play if the pot has not been opened (row 1 in the TTH matrix), he will call (i.e. limp in), and if it is raised or reraised behind, he will call those bets too. B1C5 will call 1 raise back, but fold for 2. I think Abdul Jalib built similar characters. B1C56 plays *all* hands when the pot is unopened when it gets to him. Then I can freeze the button, pick a lineup, and look at the P+L for each starting hand. B2R56 will only play when the pot is raised, he will 3 bet (R=raise), and call back any number of bets behind (only 1 more is possible in this case). Of course far fewer hands are profitable for B2R56 relative to B1C56. I then built Excel sheets that compare P+L for starting hand, position, and whether it is better to limp or raise with it.

The amazing thing is that my findings are very similar to published starting hand list, with the exception that you can open with more hands than most people would suggest, and call raises with *less*. From what I hear about the Party15, this gap concept is understood there.

[SA125]

Brandon - "Some hands are just not profitable so by discarding J10 offsuit, K10 offsuit, A10 offsuit, 9,10 suited, etc.... you can add to your bankroll since these hands are big losers in the long run. anyone care to comment?"

I've found from pokertracker that the range of hands which are profitable over the long run are much smaller than I thought. On the other hand, there is regular play and play out of the blinds. It's two different games.

I don't know if you were talking about blind play also but, especially online, the range of hands that are profitable from the blinds when h/u to a steal are very different from the other positions. As I said, I'm not sure if you were concluding that also.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Brandon:

I haven't read the other posts but your conclusions are way off base.

I suspect that part of the problem, in addition to the fact that TTH in my opinion does a very poor job of representing real poker, is that there are many hands that certainly would be unprofitable if you always played them. But they can still show a substantial long term profit if you choose to play them when the situation is right.

Best wishes,
Mason

[ZeeJustin]

4 limpers to you on the button. You have 88. Are you really folding?

[Trainwreck]

I find 62s a +EV used sparingly 8)

It may not win THAT hand, but sets ppl up for squashing later...

There are so many other variables... Just playing certain hands can be a disaster when you never see ANY of them, or when you do and it's 2 bets to you! K9s is dogshit to 2 bets.

>TW<

[YKing]

The simulation couldn't have taken into account that marginal long run loosing hands (perhaps ATo played in marginal situations) can increase the profit from better hands due to table image. If palying ATo lost 0.05* BB/hand in the long run it would still be profitable if playing it increased your winnings with AKo with 0.06* BB/hand. True?

*Figures and examples are totally taken out of the air.

[PukaPlaya]

Maybe in a full ring game depending on position this is correct. In a shorthanded S&G situation or heads up I think you need to expand this list considerbly.

If you can limp in late position with 33 and you hit your set that wouldn't be worth it?