Hand Groupings: Sklansky vs Carnegie

[Jonsan]

I am new to the game, and looking for input from more seasoned players.

I reviewed and studied Sklansky's hand groupings. I also found the modified groupings from the Carnegie-Melon folks who ran their computer simulation. The changes made by the Carnegie people made sense to me, but I don't have the practical experience to judge yet. In particular, the Carnegie study showed that low/middle suited connectors are much weaker than suited Kings and Queens with weak kickers. Anyone feel this is valid? Ridiculous?

So, what do y'all think? Those who have reviewed both groupings care to comment? Also, how useful do you think hand groupings are in NLHE? Do the groupings need to be altered for NL? Should the groupings be ignored in NL? I read articles and opinions from a few folks who feel the concept of hand groupings is detrimental in NL. At this point, I am using the groupings as a starting point to gauge the relative strength of my hand pre-flop, and recognize rags.

All comments, advice, and input are greatly appreciated.

Jon

[axioma]

I think Mason has refuted that 'research' pretty conclusivly someplace, no link for you im afraid.

[diebitter]

I think in terms of real play, Carnegie's don't stand up. They'll either not be challenged, or only be challenged by cards beating them.

I think.

[Jonsan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Mason has refuted that 'research' pretty conclusivly someplace, no link for you im afraid.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that Mason has an investment in the Carnegie research being refuted. I am not claiming that the Carnegie research is correct, and I am not flaming, just pointing out that Mason is not impartial.

J

[poker-penguin]

Well, yes, you didn't really except MM (and by extension DS) to turn around and say "OMFG we've been wrong all this time"

The lower end of the playable hand rankings are very much an "it depends" situation. I prefer suited connectors, because they are easier to ditch on the flop (king with weak kicker is always tempting to play too hard if bleieve your opponents are too loose)

[GeeeJay]

Trying to play your game based on ANYONE'S rankings will cause you to break even at the very best. They are SO dependant on the table you are playing at that trying to rank them is insane. The only use for "hand rankings" may be had by people who have never played much at all before.

George

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that Mason has an investment in the Carnegie research being refuted. I am not claiming that the Carnegie research is correct, and I am not flaming, just pointing out that Mason is not impartial.


[/ QUOTE ]

And this means what? If Mason points out factual errors concerning the Carnegie simulation, does that make it wrong? He's supporting his own work (or Sklansky's work). Seems like a good source to find out why his opponent's work is wrong.

[axioma]

exactly, i was about to say something simalar.

just because its mason that is doing the refuting, does not make his refutations any less credible. that would be flawed thinking.

he made his reply, i read them, and determined that i agreed with them. doesnt matter who he is or what investment he has.

[ianlippert]

does anyone have a link to the refutation?

[pudley4]

Are you talking about this (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/) crap?

One of the biggest flaws in this simulation is that it doesn't take into account any betting at all. Notice that our opponents only options are "play or fold". No betting, no raising.

We can see how this adversely affects profitable hands like small pairs. They will frequently win less than their "fair share", yet you can still play them very often because the small number of times you actually flop a set (and end up winning) more than make up for the high number of times you don't win.

Conversely, it doesn't take into account how expensive a losing hand is. Sure, a K5s may win slightly more often than a 98s, but that's assuming you always show down the first hand when you flop a K. Common sense tells you that you're going to lose a ton of money showing down K-[censored] hands.

Finally, saying "position isn't important" is ludicrous. Playing in later position allows you to: raise for free cards, check behind and get a free card, decide whether to raise or simply call an earlier bet depending on how many players are still in and what you want to accomplish, raise to isolate, avoid getting isolated with crappy A hands, play marginal hands because there are several players in, etc.

[Bob T.]

Hand rankings are only guidelines. As you get more and more experienced, you will think less and less about them, until you barely are aware of them.

How the hand you hold is going to play in your current game situation varies based on a bunch of different factors. The hand rankings are just an approximation of the hands average theorhetical value.

For instance, how do you feel about having pocket nines, when a solid player raises, and you have a maniac yet to act.

Ok, then how about if the maniac raised, and you have a solid player left to act. Same hand, same two opponents, different dynamic, and probably a different play preflop.

Its about how the hand you have is going to play in the situation you face.

As long as you don't understand that, you can pick any reasonable set of hand rankings to base your play on, and go from there.

You should also keep in mind, that postflop play really determines how much money you win or lose, as long as you have a reasonable preflop strategy.

[MasterOfOuts]

I made this..it may be of some use...
preflop (http://www.islandofpoker.com/preflop.aspx)

Comments are welcome