New starting hands...again?

somewhere on the www. (whose exact location I lost and don't really care to spend days trying to recall) there was a whiz of a computer sim which gave the following (if memory serves) as the "New" or Improved starting hands in Hold'em fof S&M's groups1-4:


88+


A8s

K10s

QJs

J10s


A10o

KQo


It was all very impressive, esp to a newbie like me who has trouble balancing a check book, let alone understanding comp programming/poker sims


My question is; Does anyone actually use these as starting hands?


(Well, I'm sure someone somewhere does, so let me re-phrase)


Do any pros use these?


Is there any logic to it at all or is it just another try to steal Zeus's (Well, S&M's which is close) thunder?


Thanks in advance

I only play low limit, and have no claim to fame, but they look like starting hand requirements for a loose, passive low limit game. I sure wouldn't use them in a tougher game even at low limit.


If you choose to play these starting hands I think you can expect your deviation to go through the ceiling unless you play very well after the flop, even then it will go above where you are probably comfortable with as a newbie.


You can not go wrong with S&M's starting hand requirements until you completely understand why they are what they are and what happens when deviating from them. I would file them away in an envelope with an "Open in 2004" sticker. jmo.


Mike

Mike: thanks for the reply. I appreciate it even if you're not world famous (yet!).


After 3 days I found the site:


http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/


Their argument is that these are (or should have been) S&M's groups 1-4. In other words, that S & M got it almost right but not quite; esp in the latter groups.


They support this by a comp/simulation with so many bells and whistles that it's truly overwhelming and one could easily experience a mind meltdown--or buy the Brooklyn Bridge--or perhaps they have hound The Philosopher's Stone--I dunno.


The thing is, with sooo many discussions in the low, medium and high stakes hold 'em forums recently about comp/sims; I was surprised that no one had apparently heard of this one.


Is there a mathematician in the house?

This starting hand report is an example of how simulations and not understanding true hold 'em play can get you in trouble. (Not to mention the numerous personal insults the authors of this report use to fire our way.) Anyway, I did spend some time on it a couple of years ago and since it comes up every now and then here are my comments on it.


By the way, I understand that when they originally produced this report they were trying to sell it. Apparently it didn't sell very well.


 Comments on the Taylor Starting Hand Report


As promised, here are my comments on “The New Guide to Starting Hands” by Dick Taylor. As you will see there are many errors in his assumptions that lead to many errors in his

advice. The comments follow below. (This will also probably be posted permanently in our essay area in the hopes that this confusion will not happen again)


1. The only decisions that players make are to play or fold. Their decisions do not seem to be impacted by betting or pot size. This will have the effect of over-valuing medium high cards such as KJ and KT (and QJ, QT, etc.) and under-valuing connecting hands (especially) suited connectors and small pairs.


2. Hands are played based on favorable odds of finishing with the best hand. How large a pot or how many bets you can lose is not considered. This will have the effect of over-valuing hands

like KJ and KJ, which can easily make second best hands.


3. If a player does not yet have any information, that is no one has yet acted, he assumes that a certain number of small bets are in the pot. That is, raising is discounted. Again this has the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KT.


4. Pot odds are considered only, not in conjunction with the number of players. That is, whether the previous players have raised or called is not considered. This means that hands like KJ which can easily make second best hands are over-valued because the amount of punishment they sometimes take is not represented.


5. After the flop, players only continue when they have either a made hand or a one card draw to a straight or flush. This reduces the value of hands like AK and AQ, especially if they are suited. (Two overcards with a three flush is frequently a hand you should play.) In other words, hands that have some additional semi-bluffing value, or that may still be best, especially short-handed, are ignored.


6. Position is ignored. “Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold ’em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we’ve drawn here.” Thus hands like KT which are particularly vulnerable to pressure by players acting later are elevated.


7. The broad spectrum of hold ’em table condition is not covered, even though claims to the contrary are made. The reason for this is that the betting action is not considered. Only a vague notion of the number of players in the pot.


8. Aggression seems to only be thought of in terms of winning the pot. The idea of occasionally building a big pot and then enticing others to continue when you get a favorable flop is ignored. This will have the effect of lowering the value of suited hands, especially suited connectors and small pairs.


9. Taylor states that in a very tight game that AA and KK are the only starting hands that you should raise for value. This conclusion is probably a function of the idea that players only make play or fold decisions regardless of the previous action. This is obviously not the case.


10. The conclusions about hand sensitivity to the number of players in the pot does not take into account size of the pot and the number of additional bets a hand may win or lose on the later streets. For example, on the river a hand like KK becomes more of a payoff hand in a large multi-way pot, but it tends to collect additional bets when played short-handed.


11. Hands like AQs do better in multi-way pots than Taylor gives them credit for because of additional bets that they can collect before they complete their hand. For example, in most situations, if you flop a flush draw with one of these hands you want to raise many opponents. In the Taylor play/fold criterion, this is not represented.


12. Taylor points out that hands like AQs and KQs “are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the likelihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown.” Again he fails to recognize that they occasionally will win a giant pot.


13. In the recommendation to play KTs up front in tough games instead of JTs, Taylor does not account for the fact that KTs can more easily make a second best hand (by flopping top pair with a king) and fails to account for the type of pressure that tough players can put on this hand.


14. Size of blinds and betting structure is not accounted for. For example, in today’s modern two blind structure, as compared to the old one blind structure where the “one” blind was half the size of today’s big blind, the value of suited hands, particularly suited connectors has gone up.


15. When advice is given on which hands to play, position and other players betting action is ignored. For example, Taylor’s Professional Play List has you playing the top 24% of all starting hands. While there are spots where it can be correct to play more hands than this (see HPFAP), routinely calling raises with most of these hands is suicide.


16. In The Savvy Gambler’s Play List Taylor points out that 22 and 33 are never worth playing. He fails to realize that these are hands which if you do not flop a set, you usually immediately

fold without having it cost you very much. But when you flop a set they are highly profitable. Thus they should be rated higher than their winning percentage indicates.


17. Taylor doesn’t understand that when you hit the flop with a flush draw you may be charged many best for the privilege of trying to make your flush. (Compare this to flopping a small set

where you will now do the charging.) Thus, hands like Kxs are over-valued.


Conclusion: In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics, I have a lengthy discussion on what I call non-self weighting strategies. It is shown that in virtually all gambling situations

where a positive expectation can be achieved, a non-self weighting approach is far superior to a self-weighting approach. This is exactly Taylor’s problem. By using a self-weighting approach where size of pots, additional bets gained or lost, pressure by late position players, ability to semi-bluff, etc. is not considered he has come to conclusions that do not benefit those readers that he is trying to help.

Thanks!