Playing Premium Hands????

[Buccaneer]

Here is a thought of mine. One that I am having reinforced every time I play on internet. Please do not take this as a rant, it is an observation.

I have been playing 2+2 now for several weeks. I have been playing the premium hands, betting and raising to increase the pot, checking to gain information rather than try to sneak in to the next round, and attempting to reduce the number of players that go to the show down.

Doing the math if you wait for AA, KK, AK and the rest and it takes about 2 minutes to play a game you are going to be lucky to play >2 hands an hour.

If you wait for AK and then bet it then you have about 8 players stay in for the flop which is usually blanks for you but there is always one of the 8 who fills two holes in a straight to take the hand. You have two options, decide to fold or play, it does not matter because you never see another A or K and if you were to see a A or K then some clown will be holding a 2 and make a set. Happens every time because they were too stupid to fold with a 2x. It may not be the same clown every time but there is no way that they are going to fold if there are cards to be dealt. So someone gets lucky and it is never you because you are only playing in 2 hands an hour.

I am going back and reread my books and read my notes. But maybe I do not see the big picture. Maybe I am not doing the math. I really am playing less profitabily then before 2+2 ever showed up under my Christmas tree. Well make that a bigger looser. Yes I have had some wonderful results using 2+2. I have felt in control of several games but I have also felt like I was cast into the sea and did not know how to swim.

I am playing strong hands, I bet to increase the pot and try to get other players to fold, I try to pay attention to position, I check the BB and fold if it is not a playable hand if it is raised. I make mistakes but I work on thoses. Lost a pot tonight knowing I had made the highest possible hand but forgot to consider my kicker. That will not happen again, well it might but I am going to try to learn that lesson.

Am I forgetting key concepts? What do you think is causing these results. Does 2+2 require perfect play to be effective? Should I play 49o for a while to see if I really am doing worse????????

[the_joker]

Why are you only playing 2 hands per hour??? Pre-flop strategy from just about any book will have you playing around 20-25% of your hands, which around 12-15 hands per hour online.

[Niediam]

You should play (and most definatly raise) with AK even if you knew every single person would stay in preflop because it will definatly win more than 10% of the time.

[Bluffoon]

Poker is complicated. Keep studying and posting and reading posts here. Play at the smallest limits you can find until you feel confident and comfortable that you are executing proper strategy. Pokerstars has .05/.10 games. You can play these games and not have to worry too much about your losses while you learn.

As you gain experience the things you are reading should start to make more sense and you should begin to see more success at the tables.

Good Luck.

[Mike]

You are correct about those premium hands. Just like a battle poker is won in the field not from the command post. You do not have to have premium hands to play, just better hands at the river than your opposition.

If they are showing down two pair with 53o, many starting hands are better than that. If they are showing you two pair with KQs you are out classed and out gunned.

If seven players are going to the river, your betting and raising may need some scrubbing. Possibly you are just in games that you do not do well in, maybe you need a different game texture.

Perhaps it is the books themselves? There is a big difference in the pedantry of the various 2+2 books. They do not always work well when mixed thoroughly and applied to a single game at the same time unless you know why you are mixing them.

[Buccaneer]

Thank you for the comments. I may indeed be playing to tight. I shall look into that.

The comment about the texture of the game seems to apply to me also. I find that sometimes that just changing tables makes all the difference in the world. I have been doing well at a table and someone sits down and I can no longer do well. They don't win but they change the game so that I am no longer winning. Is this common, do you experience this? I guess the great ones can adjust or even change the texture of the table to suit them.

[jtr]

By my standards you're tight -- I'd guess there are more hands you could play from LP.

[ QUOTE ]
The comment about the texture of the game seems to apply to me also. I find that sometimes that just changing tables makes all the difference in the world. I have been doing well at a table and someone sits down and I can no longer do well. They don't win but they change the game so that I am no longer winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was more interested in this comment, however. First let me say I understand what you're getting at and have had similar feelings before. But we're talking about online play, right?

How many hands do you play before you draw the conclusion that the current lineup of opponents is frustrating your game? I mean obviously you'd leave a table if everyone played very tightly, or preflop aggression went through the roof and it wasn't loose aggression. But you seem to be suggesting something more subtle, some way in which the dynamic of the other guy's play is interacting with yours.

I agree that this can happen in principle, but I guess I'd caution you that you're not mistaking a bad run of cards for the effects of the other players' styles. Seems to me that if your pocket pairs were hitting sets at greater than the expected rate, etc., you'd be perfectly happy to be at pretty much any table, no matter how quirky and frustrating the lineup of opponents.

Just a thought.

[grandgnu]

Alright, here's my advice:

1. I do not play limit Hold 'Em. I will play No Limit Hold 'Em (tourneys or cash games) and 7-stud, stud hi/lo and omaha hi/lo (limit and pot limit)

2. Only playing premium hands is not a good idea. You MUST consider position, the other players styles, the # of players at the table, etc. There are a variety of factors which will effect which hands you should play, and when. If you only play A/A, K/K and A/K, how often will you get these premium hands, how often will the flop actually help you, and how often will people play against you if they know what you're holding is? Sometimes it pays to be "caught" playing a less than premium holding.

3. Which hands do you believe you'll get paid off more frequently on? The hands that tend to bring you the biggest payouts are the unexpected hands. If you have A/K and the flop has high cards that give you a strong holding, how likely are people who don't have anything to stick around and pay you off?

Now let's say you have 7/8 suited, or 9/J, or something. Depending on how many players see the flop, and what position you're in, these hands can be playable and profitable. If you're in a later position, you can call with less chances of being raised out of the pot. If there are 5+ players in the pot, you may be getting the appropriate odds to see the flop and catch a good hand. If the flop is 8/10/Q and you're holding the J/9, well, someone who's caught top pair is going to probably bet into you, and not put you on having the straight.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating calling with 6/2 suited, or K/3, etc. These are real junk hands, the other hands mentioned have some potential for a nice straight draw, etc.

I was in a tourney at my house, and chip leader, and it was raised pre-flop by a pretty tight player. Everyone folded, and I called with 10/J suited (even thought I knew whatever his holding was had me beat). The flop was J/J/10 and he was betting into me, it was wonderful. Granted, sometimes you've just gotta get lucky, but if your position is right, and there is enough money in the pot, then calling with less than premium hands can be profitable, as long as you play well post-flop.

[Buccaneer]

Thank you for your comments. It may well be that I am seeing the sitting of a player as the "cause" of a change in my luck. I shall keep this in mind. You are also quite right that I would be more than happy when any hand of mine hits better than expected.

[Buccaneer]

I must agree that I need to loosen up a bit as well as use position more efficiently. I have looked over notes of mine and I suspect that I have over corrected a bit on my part. I think I was not seeing playable hands as playable and possibly scaring away betters when I had premium hands. Thanks for your comments.

[Mike]

When I played this week two different games, two players quit for what I thought were poor reasons. One thought he was playing WSOP and could not adjust to having to actually hold and show the best hand. The second player left in a second game because his raises were not getting any respect.

When I started out, I liked a game with better players, they were dependable. Then I started liking a passive games because I could splash a little. Then a loose game hit my fancy. Now days almost any game is okay, some just take more brain cells than others.

[Buccaneer]

Mike, having slept on these thoughts for a night I was wondering about some of the ideas touched on in your post.

As a beginer and a not so good one I am wondering if playing tables with several styles of play and different levels of "skill" using these styles if I am just having trouble learning to play all these styles at once. As I think about it I am confident that I play my best at tables where everyone is playing the same style. As your post mentions you went through phases where you prefered to play against different styles. Do you think that was a part of your learning curve or just the way it was?

Would there be a good way to concentrate against one style of poker for a while. My learning process is very linear and I find that I must break things down into smaller understandable concepts and then put them back together in my mind.

[Mike]

I learned at and play B&M so I had to take what was offered - usually one table. If you can find low limits and passive tables. Play passive tables why you work on your basics, ie, hand selection and after the flop play. That is what I would have done if I had the opportunity.

There was an essay on the site on the stages of a poker player that was very good. Usually the first stage players move into is weak tight style. Weak tight is okay, it keeps you safe while you learn the game and how to play it. Just do not settle for that style, it's not a lot of fun either emotionally or financially.

Unfortunately I do not know if passive games exist anymore, haven't seen one in a while. If you can not find a passive game, you can do other things.

Do not play 2+2 folks

Whoever scares you at the table, that is a person to stay out of their way unless you have a premium hand.

If you can not find at least three people who play worse than you do get off the table.

If you haven't all ready, TTH is worth the $90.00 they want for it. It will save you hundreds in learning at the table fees. If you can not beat TTH into the ground you won't win much if any over time in the real world.

I do not know what goes on in the beginners forum, but I would check it out also. It will help you gauge your progress as you learn more and become a better player.

[Buccaneer]

TTH = Turbo Texas Hold-em???

[d10]

If you are serious about only playing AA, KK, and AK, you'll probably lose more money than the guys who will play almost anything.

Learn what starting hands have been shown by poker players throughout the world as being profitable. There are a lot more than AA, AK and KK. This is discussed in almost every book on poker there is, so it shouldn't be hard. Then, try to figure out why each individual hand is profitable. JJ, on average, is a profitable hand. However if you're faced with calling 3 half bets cold against solid players and the flop comes AKx, your JJ is no longer profitable. Just working from a list of starting hands without considering the situation will probably be enough to break even in most small limit games. However with every hand that you take a closer look at, and learn the strengths and weaknesses of, you'll profit more and more when playing them.

My next suggestion would be to analyze the hands you've played in the past and see where you made unprofitable calls and where your play was profitable but maybe just didn't work out in that single hand. The easiest way to do this is to go to an odds calculator like at http://www.twodimes.net/poker to find out exactly where you stood at every point in the hand. Compare your odds of winning at every point in the hand to the odds you were getting from the pot. After studying enough of your hands you'll inevitably find some situations where your game is too tight and probably more where your game is too loose. Do this for hands that you both win or lose, because you'll find that sometimes when you win a hand it's only because you got lucky, and after reviewing your play you might realize that calling a bet at some point was a very bad decision that just turned out well. By reviewing your play in this manner and ignoring the results, you'll be training yourself to play correctly. For example, if you play 72o a few times and miracle cards come every time to give you the win, you might think it's a good hand to play until you analyze the odds of winning with it. On the flip side if you fold a 4 flush on the flop every time youre faced with a small bet because you don't have a made hand yet, you're missing out on a lot of profits. If you notice time and time again that you were making unprofitable calls but only because you didn't know what your opponent held, but otherwise play a solid game, you may just need to work on your hand reading skills. This is especially important for a learning player, because a bad run of cards can really shake your confidence in your game, possibly causing you to give up the game when actually you're playing very well.

Doing this will give you a good foundation and probably help turn a profit in small limit games. As you gain experience you'll be able to analyze more and more factors without even really thinking about it, then you can move up in limits and start to learn more advanced techniques that will really make you a lot of $$$.

[Mike]

Yes, well worth the $$.

[Buccaneer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are serious about only playing AA, KK, and AK, you'll probably lose more money than the guys who will play almost anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you and everyone that pointed this out is correct! We progress in small steps and I guess I just forgot about other hands that were not premium but did not suck either. Actually I think I got scared to play but I am doing better now.

I have noted that when I join a table online that the session goes much better if I play my first few hands well. Winning them is better but even loosing a hand played properly seems to be noticed and your bets seem to have a little bit of added power to them. If you play stupid even if you win hands, or over play and get lucky they seem to smell your inexperience and come after you. Not bad, but you know that they think you are weak. Sometimes my cards are bad and you are labled weak. I have been changing tables rather than sit there loosing blinds waiting on the cards to get better. Is this the correct way to deal with this? Thanks

[Buccaneer]

Ordered it Monday!

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
I have noted that when I join a table online that the session goes much better if I play my first few hands well. Winning them is better but even loosing a hand played properly seems to be noticed and your bets seem to have a little bit of added power to them. If you play stupid even if you win hands, or over play and get lucky they seem to smell your inexperience and come after you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. You are giving your opponents credit for a lot of observational ability here. What limit are you playing at? (Sorry if you've already mentioned.)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if I were you I'd give serious consideration to the idea that this link -- between you playing well in the first few hands and opponents taking your bets seriously -- is an illusory correlation.

I realize that I'm harping on a theme here, given my earlier post, but it seems to me that you talk about your game in a way that ascribes an awful lot of meaning and significance to the results of just a few hands in a tell-poor online environment.