Sklansky hands vs Unknown hands

[high007]

Hey everyone, I was browsing the web to see what kind of info was out their and I came across this:

Sklansky Hold'em Hand Groupings:

Group 1: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs
Group2: TT, AQs, AJs, KQs, AK
Group3: 99, JTs, QJs, KJs, ATs, AQ
Group4: T9s, KQ, 88, QTs, 98s, J9s, AJ, KTs
Group5: 77, 87s, Q9s, T8s, KJ, QJ, JT, 76s, 97s, Axs, 65s
Group6: 66, AT, 55, 86s, KT, QT, 54s, K9s, J8s, 75s
Group7: 44, J9, 64s, T9, 53s, 33, 98, 43s, 22, Kxs, T7s, Q8s
Group8: 87, A9, Q9, 76, 42s, 32s, 96s, 85s, J8, J7s, 65, 54, 74s, K9, T8, 43
The second table here has been floating around and it was part of someones research project their senior year. They did a number of tests that proved that the Sklansky table was good, but needed improvement.

Modified Hold'em Hand Groupings:

Group 1: AA KKQQ JJ AKs
Group 2: TT AQs AJs KQs AK
Group 3: 99 KTs QJs KJs ATs AQ
Group 4: A8s KQ 88 QTs A9s AT AJ JTs
Group 5: 77 Q9s KJ QJ JT A7s A6s A5s A4s A3s A2s J9s T9s K9s KT QT
Group 6: 66 J8s 98s T8s 55 J9 43s 75s T9 33 98 64s 22 K8s K7s K6s K5s K4s K3s K2s Q8s 44 87s 97s
Group 7: 87 53s A9 Q9 76s 42s 32s 96s 85s J8 J7s 65 54 74s K9 T8 76 65s 54s 86s
----------------------------------------------------------
Is this second hand group really an improvment from Skalansky hand groups? which hand group would be better to memorize?

[jtr]

I believe the second table is based on simulation results in which it is not clear that the opponents are being modelled in a sensible way. The author built up his results largely from a "hot and cold equity" point of view. Whereas I believe the Sklansky table is based on experience plus logical consideration of how certain hands play out in typical games.

So if you must memorize a table I'd recommend the Sklansky one. The second table would be fine if you were playing a game in which you had to decide whether or not to go all-in preflop and that was your only betting decision. But real games aren't like that.

[Iceman]

Is that the "Dick Taylor" hand rankings? They've been extensively criticized on this forum, and the consensus is that they're worthless. Search the archives.

[Rudbaeck]

I'd not recommend you memorize either chart. It's just not worth it, learn to understand preflop play and you don't need these things.

The second chart has basically moved hands with high card strength but domination vulnerability up in value. Which I guess means that EV is based on a single preflop bet only and not playing the hand out.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi High:

This stuff is junk. It comes up every now and then. What follows are my comments.

Best wishes,
Mason

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.

[binions]

I don't think in terms of "groups" as defined by S&M. I doubt anyone really does. I know S&M don't - they have said so.

I think in terms of:

Suited
Offsuit
Pairs

This is my initial "filter." When I get my hand, I categorize it into 1 of these 3.

Within each category, I know when (ie what position) a hand is profitable to play, and why and when to raise or fold it preflop depending on the circumstances.

This knowledge has come from experience, reading, computer simulations, and working on the math (odds).

S&M "groups" are fun to debate, but they aren't the way I think about starting hands.

[craftyandsly]

Mr. Malmuth,

Did you mean to say KJ and KT under #2? Presently, it says KJ and KJ. Please advise. Thanks,

Crafty

[craftyandsly]

Additionally, in #17 the word "best" should be bets.

Regards,

Crafty

[Seether]

Very constructive use of your first 2 posts.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

Mason Malmuth's litany against Taylor hand groups rightly criticizes the rankings for not considering the context of a hand, although a novice player is also capable of ignoring context if you hand him the Sklansky hand rankings. Either set may form a plausible starting point on the road to becoming a good player; though one may be inferior to the other, both will probably benefit your typical bad player at a no fold em hold em table. Taking HPFAP and subbing in the Taylor rankings for the Sklansky rankings won't cause great harm to the quality of the tome and won't derail someone whose mental abilities and hard work destine him to become a solid, winning poker player.

[binions]

Miller recommends the following in tight games, early position:

Suited cards that add to 21 or 20 (except A9)
Pairs AA-77
AK-AJ, KQ offsuit

That's 22 hands.

If you look at Taylor's hand rankings, his top 22 is almost exactly the same, except for including A9s in place of 77.

In addition, Taylor's hands ranked 23-33 are all included in Miller's "tight" middle position hands (which total 42, and also serve as his "loose" early and middle position hands).

3 more of Taylor's top 42 hands are also in Miller's top 42.

The 6 hands where Miller differs from Taylor in the top 42?

Miller
66-22
98s

Taylor
KTo
QJ-QTo
JTo
K8s
Q8s

Comparing Miller's Top 42 to S&M (groups 1-5), we have overlap except for these 7 hands

Miller
66-22
ATo
K9s

S&M
T8s
97s
87s
76s
65s
QJo
JTo

So, there you have it. All agree on about 35 of the top 42 hands.

At the margin in the top 42, Miller focuses on small pairs, S&M on suited connectors, and Taylor on offsuit broadway cards.

Is there any question that Miller and S&M are correct for the respective games they address?

[cpk]

What SSH calls a "tight" game is not actually tight. Rather, it's an occasional game condition in games that are normally looose. These are not really tight games. I consider a game to be tight if most contests are between 3 players and we see the river no more than half the time.