Would you play poker if...

[SpiderMnkE]

You were dealt AA every hand.

Yes, ok.

What is the worst hand you would play poker with if you got dealt the same hand every time?

[Sponger15SB]

KK

[SpiderMnkE]

That is a bit steep.

Certainly being guaranteed a profitable hand every hand would be better than folding a lot of junk and waiting for something profitable.

There must be some minimum hand out there that however marginally profitable, if dealt to you every hand would be slightly more profitable than the random distribution.

[scotnt73]

do the other players magically forget that im getting the same hand every time?

[SpiderMnkE]

you'd be pretty screwed if they didn't.. unless you had AA or KK. So yeah, they are very unobservant.

I would certainly play QQ every time, and even the fishiest of all fish could turn a tidy profit if they were dealt as low as 88 every hand. The lowest I'd play would probably be J10 suited or some such hand that's near 0 EV from EP and gains a lot of +EV in later positions

[SpiderMnkE]

You might even be screwed if you had KK every hand and they knew it.

[moondogg]

Bandleader: Welcome to T. G. I. McScratchy's where it's constantly New Year's Eve. Here we go again! Three, two, one!

Everyone: Happy new year!

["Auld Lang Syne" starts up]

[a waiter walks up with champagne glasses]
Marge: It must be wonderful to ring in the new year over and over and over.

Waiter: Please, kill me.

[bwana devil]

that's actually an interesting question.

i would definitely play JTs and 88.

i may go lower, but would have to think about it more. if i'd go lower than 88, id probably be willing to take any pocket pair. even 22.

[fluff]

Assuming the other players forget every hand, then you can go fairly low. Definitely down to 88, A9s, KJo.

http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evstats/positionStats.php?players=10

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
You might even be screwed if you had KK every hand and they knew it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You couldn't get many people to play against you, but if they did, it would make for a weird game. I can't imagine it'd be a -EV game.

I wouldn't play against you, that's for sure.

[coffeecrazy1]

I dunno...I'm kinda crazy about middle-low suited connectors, like 76s. I wouldn't mind having to wade in with that every time...but that would be the lowest. And yes, it would all depend on whether or not people knew about this "curse" of yours. However...I would like to say that I believe that even if you did have this curse, I know at least a couple of players who would still call you all the way down, convinced you didn't have the hand THIS time.

[emptydoubleyou]

Very interesting question.

I think I will go with JTs. I think I prefer to have them in spades.

[WDC]

do i have to play it every hand? If not I am going with 10-j suited as long as I can muck it up front

Looking at pokerroom's EV chart, J10s is the lowest hand that has +EV for every position (except 1). So I think that's probably the "right" answer if there is a right answer. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You might even be screwed if you had KK every hand and they knew it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You couldn't get many people to play against you, but if they did, it would make for a weird game. I can't imagine it'd be a -EV game.

I wouldn't play against you, that's for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would automatically steal the blinds every hand until you ran up to AA. Maybe some idiot would play A2-AK but then you make even more money.

[SpiderMnkE]

What if your hand was 33 and you were a NL player, but your opponents were able to figure it out.

How long do you think you could disguise the situation and profit from it before people caught on and you lost this magic edge.

[namknils]

[ QUOTE ]
Bandleader: Welcome to T. G. I. McScratchy's where it's constantly New Year's Eve. Here we go again! Three, two, one!

Everyone: Happy new year!

["Auld Lang Syne" starts up]

[a waiter walks up with champagne glasses]
Marge: It must be wonderful to ring in the new year over and over and over.

Waiter: Please, kill me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice quote.

I was thinking the same way, if I got AA every hand pretty soon I wouldn't want to play anymore.

[Kaz The Original]

Assuming of course my opposition didn't catch on I could play any pair profitably including the lowly 22. I imagine I could play small suited connectors as well, assuming I stuck to loose passive only games.

So, to recap, any suited connector, and pair.

[SpiderMnkE]

[ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same way, if I got AA every hand pretty soon I wouldn't want to play anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it

[Lottery Larry]

I wouldn't play if I got AA every hand. That would be boring, plus everyone would figure it out

and even if they didn't in this contrived example, I STILL wouldn't play. Anyone can play AA, or almost any other particular hand fairly well against unobservant idiots. Beating a smart field with 73o is what impresses ME.

[Lottery Larry]

I would play a LOT of hands against you if I knew you always had either AA or KK only.

I would make a lot of money off of you too, depending on how far you took your hands. The only thing I would have to think about is 4-flush boards.

[Duke]

Hell I keep playing despite getting AA every hand and losing every time.

~D

[jwvdcw]

Ad 3s 7c Js

[AtlBrvs4Life]

I would play with 22 every hand.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
I would play a LOT of hands against you if I knew you always had either AA or KK only.

I would make a lot of money off of you too, depending on how far you took your hands. The only thing I would have to think about is 4-flush boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm game ... want to set this game up somewhere?

I'll be happy to pay my travel costs to get to you as long as the stakes are worth it.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking the same way, if I got AA every hand pretty soon I wouldn't want to play anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't be so much that I wouldn't want to play, it would be more like I wouldn't need to play.

[AtlBrvs4Life]

[ QUOTE ]
I would play a LOT of hands against you if I knew you always had either AA or KK only.

I would make a lot of money off of you too, depending on how far you took your hands. The only thing I would have to think about is 4-flush boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this was NL, all somebody would have to do is go all-in every hand preflop. Doesn't matter if you know their hand or not.

I could write a program to play against you that would bet and raise at every given opportunity. It would win a lot of money. Trust me on this one.

[SpiderMnkE]

It's funny that some of you say you wouldn't play poker anymore if you got AA every hand. Because it wouldn't be fun. You get more out of playing trash like 37o.

In reality you would quit your jobs and play a lot of poker.

Oh, and I'd love to see the Nottom AA every hand match. I'm putting my money on him

[Thythe]

I think it depends on the game, but in a passive preflop NL game, you would definitely think every pair has a +EV. I would be ecstatic to get 22 every hand. Lose the $2 blinds 6 times in a row, make $100 on the 7th time when you make a set. Rinse/Repeat. I'm assuming no limit in my analysis which is all I play.

[Justin A]

If I'm playing no limit, 22. If I'm playing limit, AJs or so.

Justin A

[Lottery Larry]

I don't play at your level, first thing.

Second thing is, you wouldn't take your hands far enough to make it worthwhile. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

That might be an interesting game though. Shuffle the Aces, give you two of them, then shuffle the remaining ones in and deal my two cards and then the board.

Or Aces and Kings to you first- that would require a lot of shuffling to insure randomness.

I probably don't gain enough post-flop value to overcome the blinds and lost raises preflop against your AA-AK hands.

For thinking players this might be a really interesting exercise/challenge. How to play when the random card opponent didn't fold preflop to your automatic raise- no matter which blind you had- could be a nice mental challenge.

[Bluff Daddy]

low pockets because they would be much easier to fold if you didnt hit