Playing Every Hand

[M50Paul]

I have recently watched a couple people play every hand and both did quite well. I know that there is obviously some luck when doing that but like everthing else there is usually more than meets the eye. My question is: Is there any logic to doing this? One player at the table told me that there is a school of thought that claims you can expect to win x amount if you play EVERY hand. Althouhg I personally thought the guy didnt have a clue I am begining to wonder if there isnt something to this strategy.

One game was at $2-4 Table while the other game was $4-8. They were both at Foxwoods. I would characterize both games as loose leaning towards the passive side although they had there moments of aggression.

[grandgnu]

I still feel that playing anywhere from 15-30% of your hands is ideal, and what most winning players utilize.

The money you'll win from your trash hands getting lucky usually isn't going to make up (in the long term) for the money you'll waste trying to play them to the flop.

[Pepsquad]

If they were both winning, you can chalk it up to short term varience. There is NO WAY to be winning limit player long term by seeing every flop. It is statistically impossible.

[TStoneMBD]

theyre lucky. overlyloose play in limit will make you a loser, period. nl is a little different however.

[hockey1]

[ QUOTE ]
One player at the table told me that there is a school of thought that claims you can expect to win x amount if you play EVERY hand

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely true. What he neglected to mention is that you can also expect to lose x + $$$$$ by playing that way.

[driller]

1. It is almost certainly not true.
2. If it is true it is even more certain that the participants of this forum don't believe it.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If they were both winning, you can chalk it up to short term varience. There is NO WAY to be winning limit player long term by seeing every flop. It is statistically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not impossible. It's just really, really, really, RILLY unlikely.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I still feel that playing anywhere from 15-30% of your hands is ideal, and what most winning players utilize.


[/ QUOTE ]


15-30% ... does anyone really play that big of a percentage of their hands over the long haul? Are you counting your Big Blind when it's not raised?

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
If they were both winning, you can chalk it up to short term varience. There is NO WAY to be winning limit player long term by seeing every flop. It is statistically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly... It is very, very unlikely, especially once you describe their playing style as passive that they are winning players when playing all their hands. But, given appropriate table choice i.e. bad enough competition, who will take hands too far when you are ahead after the flop you can certainly be a winning player by playing every hand, although I agree it is very unlikely and would require AMAZING post-flop play and very weak opponents.

-K_squared

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still feel that playing anywhere from 15-30% of your hands is ideal, and what most winning players utilize.


[/ QUOTE ]


15-30% ... does anyone really play that big of a percentage of their hands over the long haul? Are you counting your Big Blind when it's not raised?

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I suppose I'm mixing tourney and live play together here. I know in my experience in tourney play, I've done well playing 20-30% of my hands.

[M50Paul]

Well, I have much the same view as you relative to playing "every hand" and, oh by the way, nieher one of them played post flop any better. I am amazed that they actually won $$ during the session but they did. When I would raise he would call and when we would turn our cards it was amazing what he would show. Hands like unsuited 2 gap cards with nothing on the flop even close to making a draw. But again he was not the first person I saw play that way. The other guy I saw do this would fold much more often after the turn ( would go to turn on most every hand ). He would some how pull cards out his butt in many hands and win huge pots. It was amazing to watch. I played very few hands played, played my good hands aggressively and ended up winning a whopping $20. When I was leaving I begining to think that maybe there was a better way after all.

[RRRRICK]

I play in a home which includes a player just like this. Ultra loose agressive. Playing any two cards and consequently betting out for any draws. The first time I played with this group this guy hit everything, runner runner flushes, gun shot straight draws you name it he got it. In one hand he even hit runner runner quads with pocket 7's with a flop that contain AKT, I mean totally crazy play. That night he must have pocketed $500 in a $1/2 game in about 6 hours BUT since then this guy has lost in every game we've played. That's the answer right there over time mathematics always restores some sense to things. Even the biggest rush wont cover the loses of playing every hand

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I have much the same view as you relative to playing "every hand" and, oh by the way, nieher one of them played post flop any better. I am amazed that they actually won $$ during the session but they did. When I would raise he would call and when we would turn our cards it was amazing what he would show. Hands like unsuited 2 gap cards with nothing on the flop even close to making a draw. But again he was not the first person I saw play that way. The other guy I saw do this would fold much more often after the turn ( would go to turn on most every hand ). He would some how pull cards out his butt in many hands and win huge pots. It was amazing to watch. I played very few hands played, played my good hands aggressively and ended up winning a whopping $20. When I was leaving I begining to think that maybe there was a better way after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes..............yes there is Paul. You should raise pre-flop with any holding, and the same on the flop, turn and river. Just keep firing away and betting like a maniac. Remember, ANY two cards CAN win!

p.s. Where and when will you be playing, and can I talk you into playing higher stakes?

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
nl is a little different however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to hear this thought expounded upon

[Pepsquad]

[ QUOTE ]
I play in a home which includes a player just like this. Ultra loose agressive. Playing any two cards and consequently betting out for any draws. The first time I played with this group this guy hit everything, runner runner flushes, gun shot straight draws you name it he got it. In one hand he even hit runner runner quads with pocket 7's with a flop that contain AKT, I mean totally crazy play. That night he must have pocketed $500 in a $1/2 game in about 6 hours BUT since then this guy has lost in every game we've played. That's the answer right there over time mathematics always restores some sense to things. Even the biggest rush wont cover the loses of playing every hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right. I again contend it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE to be a LONG TERM WINNING LIMIT holdem player by seeing every single flop. Not "unlikely" and not "highly improbable", but IMPOSSIBLE!

Pep.

[scotty34]

Is it actually statistically impossible? I can't see this as being correct. It may not win you the maximum amount of money possible, actually it almost certainly won't, but I think it could be feasible to win with this strategy. Playing every hand is obviously going to create a table image for you. You will win much larger pots both when your bad cards hit and your good cards hit. Opponents will really have no idea what to put you on. If you are able to limp every hand, you will have the best hand in the end more than 1 in 10 times at a full ring game (because other people will fold). You can abandon your hand on the flop if you miss, and it will only cost you your original 1 small bet. I think if you are exceptionally good at reading other players, making money is actually possible. When you said that it is statically impossible, which statistics were you referring to?

[Pepsquad]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it actually statistically impossible? I can't see this as being correct. It may not win you the maximum amount of money possible, actually it almost certainly won't, but I think it could be feasible to win with this strategy. Playing every hand is obviously going to create a table image for you. You will win much larger pots both when your bad cards hit and your good cards hit. Opponents will really have no idea what to put you on. If you are able to limp every hand, you will have the best hand in the end more than 1 in 10 times at a full ring game (because other people will fold). You can abandon your hand on the flop if you miss, and it will only cost you your original 1 small bet. I think if you are exceptionally good at reading other players, making money is actually possible. When you said that it is statically impossible, which statistics were you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMPOSSIBLE! Not even in the same realm as possible.

[scotty34]

Yes I know what your point of view is, and I'm not saying its wrong, or that I'm right. I was just curious as to what statistics actually make it impossible? I think it is theoretically in the realm of possible at least. However, it would depend on a lot of factors such as weak competition, a very intelligent and perceptive player, and a lot of time put into perfecting this strategy into a science.

[RRRRICK]

It is possible to have some winning sessions but over many sessions you will lose collectively

[Pepsquad]

Okay, you might be right but here's my reasoning. Let's start with an unreasonable BB/100 for a winning player. For aguements sake, let's say it's 6. BB/100 is something that's been discussed at great length on these boards and it's safe to say that most winning players would argue that even 5 is unsustainable long-term. How many hands are dealt an hour? 70-80. Now, the normal player VP$IP say 15-25% of the time? That leaves AT LEAST (assuming no raises) that you will be spewing 30-40 more BB's per hour by seeing every flop than a normal TAG would. Yes, you will win your fair share of hands with 73o but over the long haul, I contend there is no way you could win enough to counter the cost of seeing every flop. It isn't even close.

Pep.

[RRRRICK]

I have to agree with Pep, its a bit like spreading $200 over a roullette board sure you might hit the winning number with a $5 bet and but your return is less than your outlay

[scotty34]

I agree with this to some extent. Poker however, unlike Roulette, is a very dynamic game. Much depends on what your opponents play like, where as playing roulette your opponent is fixed, and will always act the same. I believe, that with the right group of players, a specific table could be profitable playing in this manner.

Perhaps the unreasonable part would be finding such a table, and contrary to the dynamics of poker, having it stay the exact same over time. Most opponents would learn very quickly and figure out how to beat you in reality. I still think, in theory, if you could find such a table, it would be beatable.

I agree in reality, this is not going to happen, I only maintain that statistically, it is possible.

[M50Paul]

Ah...... Should I just tranfer my money to you or do you actually want to sit down and play? Either way I am ok with it

[Pepsquad]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this to some extent. Poker however, unlike Roulette, is a very dynamic game. Much depends on what your opponents play like, where as playing roulette your opponent is fixed, and will always act the same. I believe, that with the right group of players, a specific table could be profitable playing in this manner.

Perhaps the unreasonable part would be finding such a table, and contrary to the dynamics of poker, having it stay the exact same over time. Most opponents would learn very quickly and figure out how to beat you in reality. I still think, in theory, if you could find such a table, it would be beatable.

I agree in reality, this is not going to happen, I only maintain that statistically, it is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Grrrrrrrrr! You are frustrating me Scotty. Okay I give up. I agree it is theoretically possible to win money seeing every flop. If you were somehow able to find 9 drunk monkeys masquerading as poker opponents EVERY SINGLE TIME you sat down at a table over 50k hands that were willing to fold EVERY SINGLE TIME you bet on the flop, you could win money.
It's also theoretically possible that a snail could cross the interstate during rush hour without getting crunched. But at some point, you reach such an obscene level of statistical improbability that saying "Well, it's theoretically possible" is just argumentative. That's the point we've reached here.

Pep.

[A_C_Slater]

I play 5-10 in the casino. But when I get home I sometimes sit down at the .05/.10 at Paradise and play every hand to work on my postflop skills. I raise with hands I normally would raise with and cold call with hands I would never consider limping in with as well. My goal during these 100 hand sessions is simply to break even.

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it actually statistically impossible? I can't see this as being correct. It may not win you the maximum amount of money possible, actually it almost certainly won't, but I think it could be feasible to win with this strategy. Playing every hand is obviously going to create a table image for you. You will win much larger pots both when your bad cards hit and your good cards hit. Opponents will really have no idea what to put you on. If you are able to limp every hand, you will have the best hand in the end more than 1 in 10 times at a full ring game (because other people will fold). You can abandon your hand on the flop if you miss, and it will only cost you your original 1 small bet. I think if you are exceptionally good at reading other players, making money is actually possible. When you said that it is statically impossible, which statistics were you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mammux]

More interesting question: how would the other players have to play for it to be optimal for you to play every hand? I am thinking extremely weak tight.

-Magnus

[Filet O' Fish]

I apologize if this sounds mean but I am so tired of people asking these kinds of questions. I will have some sympathy because when I first started playing hold'em I wondered why people who played every hand were able to win. Now that I have a deeper understanding of the game I can see that this is the exception, not the rule. You say that you witnessed these two fish playing every hand and winning, but that was during that session only. Do you follow these two around day and night and keep track of their bankrolls? I would guess that you don't which means the majority of the time when they lose their ass, you are not there to witness it. And if this strategy is correct, why don't you try playing every hand? Why doesn't everyone? Instead of watching people who play too many hands and who go too far with them, spend your time observing some of the better players who win on a consistent basis. I guarantee they're not in many pots.

[illunious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nl is a little different however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to hear this thought expounded upon

[/ QUOTE ]

Just some anecdotal thoughts... When I play nano-no-limit home games with my non-poker-playing friends, I see every relatively cheap flop I can (less than 5x BB), this is probably 95% of flops. The fact that I'm usually drunk and the game moves painfully slow and playing super-loose is fun are big reasons for playing like this, but I usually cash out a winner because my post-flop play is vastly superior to anyone else.

Every pot has potential to have 3 people all in on the turn with top pair no kicker winning at the showdown. Betting 10x the pot on the flop will probably get called. Basically, limping with my garbage for 1 BB can win 200 BB if I hit the board (getting paid off isn't much of a concern).

It's kind of like implied odds, though I don't think implied odds is the correct definition for why one would play like this.

[K C]

I was waiting for a seat at a higher stakes NL game once and I saw a player pretty much run over the game by playing every hand. It was a very passive game though and the opponents were very intimidated. I was licking my chops and waited quite a while for the seat, and needless to say this player was an easy mark once I got to play - I just waited for a real hand and played back at him. It turned out he wasn't that stupid though and adjusted somewhat.

This all depends on the play of the opponents. As a general rule you want to play tight, but there are situations where players are laying down for you, and you can loosen up more. If you try this in the wrong spots though, and most spots are wrong, you will pay big in the end, as players will look to play stronger hands and call you down with them. It's never a good idea to buck the odds, although fold equity does count just as much as hand equity.

KC
kingcobrapoker.com

[RRRRICK]

Whislt this is possible I think the correct word we are looking for here is IMPROBABLE

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
It's kind of like implied odds, though I don't think implied odds is the correct definition for why one would play like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can see, this is precisely the implied odds concept, just an extreme example of it.

[illunious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's kind of like implied odds, though I don't think implied odds is the correct definition for why one would play like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can see, this is precisely the implied odds concept, just an extreme example of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's kind of like limping UTG with 22 at .5/1. It's not pot odds, the current or estimated final size of the pot is not your concern. You limp because certain players will pay you off after the flop. link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/favlinker.php?Cat=&Entry=11820&F_Board=holdem&Thre ad=315534&partnumber=1&postmarker=)

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, my line "(Small and medium pocket pairs) are profitable hands when you are up against opponents who will pay you off for multiple bets when you flop a set." provides a deeper understanding of the situation than just saying something like "your implied odds with these hands are great".

[/ QUOTE ]

[NMcNasty]

In the long run these players will lose, but not as much as you might think.

They get great implied odds; every time they actually hit their hand they will get paid off. A lot of other players make the mistake of assumming that ultra-loose preflop play translates to aggressive postflop play, so they'll routinely call to showdown against these players with ace-high.