If you were dealt two fives

every single time in a full holdem game (and your opponents didn't catch on), would you win? If not, name a better hand that would rate to break even.

But I'm sure the mathemeticians know.

I suppose it would depend on the type of game. In an agressive game, you would rarely get to see a flop, so your blinds would be eaten away. In a loose passive game it would probably be a big winner, with many chances to flop a set. In an *average* game it would probably be a small loser.


My *feeling* is that sixes would be more of a break even hand, with sevens being a small winner--in an average game.


But it all depends on the type of game it is. At the level you (David) play at I would expect fives to be a small loser. I suppose you can speak on your experience.


Not a very thought out answer. I'm NOT breaking out the calculator for this one. ;-)

Sure, you have the soft set game. But I'm thinking of the super-tight, heads-up raise-it-to-the-roof game. My opponent would be driven absolutely mad that I ALWAYS had a pair. It would be uncanny. He would know I had to be bluffing. He would read me to be holding QTs, nothing, anything. I would have no bluffing frequency. I could bet every time he had nothing. The sheer improbability of it would completely throw him out of whack.


But a part of the question you could maybe be a little more specific on is, do I know I'm going to keep getting dealt two fives, or am I as surprised as he is? Because if I could count on it, I could definitely conceive of a profitable picture to paint around it, assuming I didn't have to try to conceal it.


If it were 2's or 3's could I do it? Hmmm, maybe not. But I think in the right game, say Paradise 10-20 heads up, I could just edge it with 4's.


eLROY

If you CAN figure a profitable stretegy for fives, than why not sixes, sevens and so on. There are only 169 different variations. ;-)

The fact that you never will have a bad blind helps a lot.

I assume you mean your opponents get blasted by some type of memory eraser thing like they used in Men in Black but otherwise know your overall game as would normal opponents.


You would win money with a pair of fives in a typical game. Note that sometimes it gets folded BTF as it would in a regular game. In a super tough game (a lot of three way pots with multiple raises) it would probably be a loser.


Regards,


Rick

you sly dog you, present a question that, if answered, is wrong because we can't know the answer.


if you are a horrible player, AA isn't going to break even over time. (or is it? is it that strong that even horrible players can't misplay them THAT badly? i don't know) it seems like there is too much we can't know to answer the question. are they always the same suits? i think that, over time, you will become such an expert at playing 55 that they will begin to show profit, if they don't rate to otherwise. you'll always have the same hand, one less function for your brain to work on. that *should* mean that you will be able to focus on outplaying your opponents more often. hopefully this would increase the EV of 55.


just my thoughts...

In a 10/20 or 15/30 game,

I would win with a pair of

fives every hand.

You would destroy the game (maybe 2.5 BB per hour, at 35-40 hph). Being dealt JTo every hand might make you a breakeven player.

There is no factual answer to this question. There may be a mathematical answer given somewhat fixed assumptions. Not being a math whiz I won't go there. Maybe the fact that 5,5 is among the top 78 starting hands, (ranked by best hand not best playing hand)has something to do with this question. My guess is that if there were no betting the 5,5's would do better than break even but that can be shown with Probe if that is true.


So in a typical game if I always held 5,5 I probably make money. But then again I'm a great poker player.


Vince

I think it comes down to the idea that the 55 can hold its own in the blind stealing/defending department and any set making potential would be gravy, so it should be a winner in all games.


D.

55 should be a winner, and I'll attempt to rationalize it for both tough games and loose games.


In tough games:


These pots will generally be 2 or 3 handed. There are a lot of hands that will raise before the flop that aren't overpairs, and I love my 55 here (assuming that they'll never know what you have) because you should have many opportunities to put on semibluff raises and such. Plus, you'll have good position sometimes, which will allow you to reraise to isolate headsup, or be in the blinds, where you only need to call a fraction of a raise. I also think that UTG this hand is very playable in even the toughest games, because if you limp and get raised behind, the pot will likely be heads up, and pocket pair isn't a terrible hand here either. In fact, since 5's are key to many straights, the 55 will be much better than a hand like 44 heads up since you'll be able to back into more hands that will allow the collection of several BB from an aggressive player (namely he raises preflop and you make some str8 or a set late in the hand). About the only time the hand won't be playable is if you're needing to cold-call raises from good players. Then you can fold it and lose no sleep. Note that making money with this hand requires being a good player after the flop.


In loose games, you'd kick some serious ass with this hand, because play would be very straightforward and low variance. You'd know what to do every hand, and would basically be calling every hand preflop, then folding on the flop if you missed your set (or some favorable straight draw). This would be the easiest poker game ever - the + EV could almost be pinned down exactly by knowing how big the pots were in terms of BB. Even a monkey could be trained to play this game (which would mean that I'd have a shot, too). Please find me this game, David and I'll send you half the profits for hooking me up with it.

Well, with 55 every hand you would probably end up seeing somewhere around 25-50% of flops, depending on looseness and aggressiveness. In reality we only get to play about 15-30% of our hands, again depending on game conditions. But 55 has a much lower expectation than many of those hands we play in our regular random distribution of hands. Theoretically, we play any hand that has an EV over zero, but this still isn't as many hands as we get to play when we are dealt 55 every hand.


The answer to this question then lies in whether EV(15-30% of random hands) > EV(25-50% of Prestos). I doubt that it is, as there are many more playable hands that run very close to 55 in value (I'm guessing about 77-22, A9s-A2s, KJs-K9s, T9s) that run very far (AA-TT, suited BJs).


But it's close. I'll just guess the break-even bar is around 33/A5s/87s/KJ.

Why did you pick the pair? After a zillion hands, there should be a break-even Axs, Axo, Kxs, Kxo, and so forth (x = any other card).


If expert abeit biased consensus is a legitimate indicator, then I'm sure the answer is a resounding yes: ask any pro if he thinks he's a net loser with pocket fives dealt and my guess is that the answer will be no from more than 90% of those polled.


Fives on the button won't average as much as the blinds, but they'll average more than the small blind. I'm pretty sure that a competent players could earn more than a small bet per the other nine hands if you throw in the other specialty situations where they're profitable, including enough to compensate for the times you don't get to open on the button.


My guess is that the break-even hands in a full middle limit game would be a notch or two lower, something like 44, K4s, K9o, A2s, A8o, QTo, 87s.


Although the sample is way too small, I have records of the results of 130,000 random hands I've played (thanks to Tony H.), and exactly two have broken exactly even: K3s and Q3s (dealt about 500 times each), although this involves a lot of short-handed play and they rarely see the flop.

55 would win easy in any heads up game. (P.S. What's with Goldbach?)

David, you didn't specifythe game, but I will assume the game I play in.


If I were dealt 22 every hand, I know I would lose $$ in a 10 seated game.


If I were dealt 88 every hand, I know I would win $$ in a 10 seated game.


I think 55 is closer to 22 than 88, strength of pairs isn't necessarily linear, so I think it is a small loser. In a very agressive game (not my assumption here), if it were played expertly, I think it is break even or slightly better (so much of it would be headsup).


I think 66 probably breaks even, 77 wins. 88 wins a lot.


Mark

And oh, I just ran a sim TTHE4. Best player in the game against a mixed loose table (34% preflop). Loses a little. 22 loses a lot. 88 wins a lot. Lost more than I guessed. But you know these sims, not to be trusted :-)


Mark

How do you figure that JT would be a break-even hand? JT has very little value except after loose limpers for one bet and for attacking/defending blinds (and in all three of those cases it isn't that much to get excited about). I think you would be a clear net loser geting JT every hand, simply because you'd be folding an extremely high percentage of hands, and the times you are best you are not best by much.


Thoughts?

Terrence.... you use the phrases 'very little value' and 'not much to get excited about'. Keep in mind we're talking about a hand that breaks even, not a hand that shows a profit. You've pretty much described what we are looking for!


More specifically, JTo will be folded often, but it's not costing you any money when you fold it outside of the blinds. Every single time you play it outside the blinds, you have expected a profit. We're looking to find a hand that will recover the losses of the hand in the blinds when we are able to play it outside of the blinds. In the average game, you are going to lose less than half of your posted money with JTo in the blinds, so this is all that you will have to recover outside of the blinds.


Your only opportunities to play this hand outside the blinds is in steal position (raising in the last three spots or so), and occasionally limping in late position whne there have been some loose limpers in front of you. It's not much, but I think it's enough to recoup the fractional loss in the blinds.


The loss in the blinds will be greatly dependent on how often you get a free walk. An unraised pot will allow you to recover almost the entire blind, and a raised pot will have you lose less than half a small bet on the big blind, and probably the full small blind. However, in a game in which you do not get free walks, you will probably also get more opportunities to open-raise with this hand in late position, yielding a profit of about one small bet each time.


On the average, I would expect you to lose about 0.7 small bets each time you go through the blinds, and be able to recover that by being able to play the hand outside the blinds a bit less than once per round.


These are all just estimates, of course. There are many hands that would be close to breakeven. I would expect all of the borderline hands that you are willing to open-raise in late position, and are willing to defend your big blind with, would be close to breakeven.

I fold pocket pairs preflop about ten times per year. So I don't know if I'd win or not with 55 every time, but it sure would be fun to see every flop.


Tommy

What difference would it make what suits they are?

Hi Mike,

Great analysis. After hearing your reasoning I'm quite sure the break-even offsuit hand is closer to your JT than my original guess of KJ. JT itself perhaps seems a little low because I would certainly fold it (against a stranger) 3 off the button, usually fold 2 off and raise about 50/50 in the cutoff. So maybe that's the source of our respective discrepancies -- you might be quite sure you can make a profit with JT from 3-off, but I am less sure. However since KJ is a clear raise for anyone 3-off, that is probably too high.

Terrence.... we actually did not disagree on where to open-raise with the JTo, since my 'last three positions' was referring to the button, cutoff, and one prior to the cutoff, though we do seem to disagree on the frequency with which to do so.


As for the actual value in those positions, I'm not able to strongly defend my numbers, since they are only estimates.

I haven't read the other responses, but I think 55 is profitable simply because it rates to be better than an average blind hand and a better than average stealing hand. Add to that profitable times to call and it seems a sure winner.


Paul Talbot

baggins,


AA isn't going to break even over time. (or is it? is it that strong that even horrible players can't misplay them THAT badly? i don't know)


AA is so strong that even horrible players would make money (big money) over the long haul. The only exception might be a player who folded them WAY too much, a rare, and poor, bird.


This can be easily shown with even with unmodified (that is out of the box, without expert intervention) simulations, and are so conclusive that even the the uninformed naysayers (as in Mason Malmuth) would probably have to agree.


For example, even a player who merely just check calls all the way (and NEVER bets or folds or raises) makes nearly 4 times the big blind with slightly modified sims (and more without modification). These sims can be improved upon but the manpower to gain ratio isn't there. Keep in mind that the other "players" don't realize that the AA is always just check-calling, they have no memory.


I can't see any easy way of demonstrating this through other methods, although some probably could.


In the meantime, it don't really matter, do it?


Regards.

if i have to look to see which 2 they are because they change every time, then i am always trying to remember which suits they are (not hard.) if i know that im getting red 55 EVERY time i can do fun stuff to create action like play it 'blind' things like that. small difference, but still a difference.

they don't get to have memory at all? they don't get to even learn how you play? your tendencies? then you are getting way more than a pocket pair advantage here.


seriously, i do realize that AA would win a lot of money even just taking it to showdown everytime. i wasn't thinking clearly when i posted that part. thanks for not jumping down my throat...

yeah baby yeah...I have folded them 10 times in my life...man, the anticipation of flopping a set...woohoo

Yes...raise it in late position if no one else has come in or if someone in mid-late position limps. Also call in middle position or later when at least 2 players have limped in. 55 should be a money hand.


Of course it's crucial that they not know you are getting 55 every time.