bisonbison vs Ed Miller [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

DavidC

06-10-2005, 01:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Odds of flopping a set: 7.5:1

What bisonbison meant is that the $0.5/1 game is so donkish that you have better than 7.5:1 implied+pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of things about this:

1) it has to be your 1 investment to other people's 7.5, not your 1, then your 3 to their 3.5.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

2) You have to make up that in EQUITY, not in pot size. If they flop a flush draw vs your set, then 7.5:1 isn't good enough any more, you need to get like 15-20:1 because they're going to be collecting equity with you as you build the pot.

and finally:

3) I figured that the skill of opponents at the 0.5/1 level was what bison was talking about, BUT I also thought that the skill of small stakes players was the whole focus of SSHE... is Ed assuming smarter players than Bison? If not, does Ed underestimate the post-flop odds or overestimate risk of raising or something?

That (#3) is the point of the post, really. (#1 and #2 are just stuff that I like to bitch about periodically.)

--Dave.

Entity

06-10-2005, 01:11 AM

Bison is right.

So is Ed.

Redd

06-10-2005, 01:50 AM

Apologies in advance for the hijack, but I saw the final trot that pushed me over the edge.
What is that weird green thing anyways, dude? I miss the smoking monkey.

SoftcoreRevolt

06-10-2005, 02:12 AM

Even then you should be able to find tables with 5-6 to the flop average(with most being 5, of course), the amazing calling stations make up any difference you'd need in playing 22 preflop anyway.

I haven't been playing much in the afternoon lately, and moved up to 1/2, but the loose tables were still there, just took a bit of table selection, an odd feeling at .5/1, but hey.

aK13

06-10-2005, 04:04 AM

bison's defense basically amounts to "if you can't get enough limpers to limp or if you find yourself raised preflop, you should be finding a new table and limping 22 UTG"

@bsolute_luck

06-10-2005, 06:03 AM

reread Ed. the reason you'd limp 22 is if the table is loose passive. giving you a cheap and profitable look at the flop.

why you wouldn't limp 22 UTG is if is shorthanded and aggressive. you don't want to be calling 3 bets back to you if only 2 other players are in or HU.

Rev. Good Will

06-10-2005, 10:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Odds of flopping a set: 7.5:1

What bisonbison meant is that the $0.5/1 game is so donkish that you have better than 7.5:1 implied+pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think SSHE gives advice where the opponents can at least think, not the case in .5/1. So maybe when i'm at 2/4 or 3/6, i won't be limping 22 UTG (even then, not a definite, cause in loose passive games, sorry miller, but I'm limping then too)

Quercus

06-10-2005, 10:06 AM

Whatever happened to bisonbison, anyway?

Rev. Good Will

06-10-2005, 10:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bison is right.

So is Ed.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon man, you said it yourself, the why is more important than the what. I'm leaving the wheels on for a little bit until I have a solid understanding why.

ICantRaed

06-10-2005, 10:37 AM

I think he "recently" posted about getting a job at Google (Gmail) and moving away from playing poker as his way of making money.

droolie

06-10-2005, 11:07 AM

It doesn't really matter what you do with it. It's a slightly +EV hand from EP position at a good loose passive table. It's slightly -EV at a more aggro and tight table. I usually limp with it but if I folded it UTG every time over the last 50K hands I'd probably be leaving a grand total of $2 on the table.

I think the bigger point is that all pocket pairs have terrific implied odds and should be played whenever possible. Calling raises out of the blinds with low PP's is usually correct. Calling from LP with a few CC'ers is too. Sets are big hands and will usually pay off handsomely.

waynethetrain

06-10-2005, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I usually limp with it but if I folded it UTG every time over the last 50K hands I'd probably be leaving a grand total of $2 on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think this may be the most important observation.

1. There are some hands that are playable by the very best players here that are unprofitable for the vast majority of players here due to differences in post flop skill. If all you made is $2, I bet I am loser with that hand at this stage.

2. Some of the marginal hands recommended here by some add VERY LITTLE to the bottom line even for the very best post flop players. What they mostly do is increase variance. I don't know about you guys, but I'm willing to give up a few dollars over the course of a year to limit the number and extent of my downturns.

3. If you are multi-tabling, many marginal hands become even more difficult to play profitably. Even worse, playing them they can distract you from another table where you are involved in a potentially highly profitable situation. So they probably cost you a lot of money. You just don't know it.

As an aside, I don't know where you guys are finding these 5-6 players to the flop tables (other than Pacific). I almost NEVER see a table like that at PP. When I do, it lasts for no more than a round or two because as players leave, it is attacked by all the rocks on the huge waiting list.

IPSC

06-10-2005, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]

2. Some of the marginal hands recommended here by some add VERY LITTLE to the bottom line even for the very best post flop players. What they mostly do is increase variance. I don't know about you guys, but I'm willing to give up a few dollars over the course of a year to limit the number and extent of my downturns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking along the same line, but my conclusion is that it is definatly worth it to add easy to play marginal hands. EP small pocket pairs are pretty easy to play post flop. I think I end up getting better action on my monsters from tighter opponents when I play more small or zero EV hands.

djg40

06-10-2005, 07:40 PM

It is okay to limp in with 22 UTG. In some situations, it is perfectly acceptable to raise 22 from UTG. Yes, SSHE says you need x number of players in the pot for it to be +EV. However, if you do the exact same thing every time you get 22 UTG, your thinking opponents will have a pretty good idea of what you do/do not have.

If you always raise AA, from any position, your opponents will know that when you don't raise, you don't have AA. They have no reason to think you do, since you always raise.

If you start to mix things up, raise sometimes, limp sometimes, with all your hands, you keep your opponents guessing. This is a game of incomplete information. We want the information our opponents receive to be as imcomplete as possible.

That is why it is okay to limp, or even raise, with 22 from UTG.

Shillx

06-10-2005, 07:44 PM

or even raise, with 22 from UTG.

Huh? I can't ever think of a good time to raise 22 UTG in a full game. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Limp in a typical game (online or live). Sometimes fold if the table dictates to do so (namely it is too tight). Fold at a very aggressive table as well (like where hands go 3-4 ways for a cap every hand). If pots are being played 7 ways for a cap, you can grit your teeth and play it.

Brad

Aaron W.

06-10-2005, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you always raise AA, from any position, your opponents will know that when you don't raise, you don't have AA. They have no reason to think you do, since you always raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? While I suppose that's true, you're suggesting something that's fairly absurd for this level of play. Any gain you have by confusing your opponents is going to swamped by your immediate losses because you've failed to build a big pot with your big hand.

In fact, your whole argument is right on the border of pure donk. By your reasoning, it's perfectly reasonable to limp in with 25o UTG because nobody would expect it. You're highlighting one weak factor and neglecting far too significant ones.

djg40

06-10-2005, 07:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]

In fact, your whole argument is right on the border of pure donk. By your reasoning, it's perfectly reasonable to limp in with 25o UTG because nobody would expect it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I just assumed people would understand that I was talking about hands that you are normally going to play anyway. Clearly, limping with 25o is not "perfectly reasonable," and no where did I even come close to saying that. I am not advocating raising with weak hands, but if you do the same exact thing every single time, your opponents, no matter how stupid they are, will begin to realize.

Put me down all you want, but I don't think that doing the exact same thing every time is right, no matter what the limits are. Do you?

Shillx

06-10-2005, 08:02 PM

I am not advocating raising with weak hands, but if you do the same exact thing every single time, your opponents, no matter how stupid they are, will begin to realize.

This doesn't apply to a ring game. You play against so many different people that it is impossible for them to get a read on you. You would have to play thousands of hands to figure out that they were a TAG and capable of raising 22 UTG.

When you play HU it is very important to know your opponent. Not so much in the Party ring game universe where you are playing against so many different players.

Brad

oreogod

06-10-2005, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone interested in sponsoring a Celebrity Deathmatch?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take Ed and give 3:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://deathmatch.isuisse.com/exclusive.gif

Beavis68

06-10-2005, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Odds of flopping a set: 7.5:1

What bisonbison meant is that the $0.5/1 game is so donkish that you have better than 7.5:1 implied+pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think SSHE gives advice where the opponents can at least think, not the case in .5/1. So maybe when i'm at 2/4 or 3/6, i won't be limping 22 UTG (even then, not a definite, cause in loose passive games, sorry miller, but I'm limping then too)

[/ QUOTE ]

Has anyone else actually looked at their PT stats? I know that PokerRoom showed that the micro pair were not profitable early.

5600 hands with a WR of 7.11bb/100 (4k hands from 5c/10c n rake), 22 is negative for the first 3 postions for me.

Aaron W.

06-10-2005, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In fact, your whole argument is right on the border of pure donk. By your reasoning, it's perfectly reasonable to limp in with 25o UTG because nobody would expect it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I just assumed people would understand that I was talking about hands that you are normally going to play anyway. Clearly, limping with 25o is not "perfectly reasonable," and no where did I even come close to saying that. I am not advocating raising with weak hands, but if you do the same exact thing every single time, your opponents, no matter how stupid they are, will begin to realize.

Put me down all you want, but I don't think that doing the exact same thing every time is right, no matter what the limits are. Do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to raising AA, I'm all for raising it 100% of the time at these stakes. It's not even close. I don't care if they figure out that a limp means I don't have AA. It simply doesn't matter if they can isolate one or five hands out of the 169 possible starting hands that I'll always raise. Any strategic gain I have is lost because the money I failed to immediately collect will not be made up in future hands. The return is just far too small.

Variation of play at the micros really comes in at the level of how you play hands that are close in EV. An excellent example is AJo and KQo in the blinds. You can raise it or you can limp it. It's so close either way that it won't hurt/help you if you take one over the other. But with AA, the difference between limping and raising is dramatic. It's on the order of .7 SB per opponent in the pot. It's impossible to win that money back. Yes, you might happen to trick someone who flops a big hand into paying you off a little bit more. But this is a rare instance and all of the times that this *doesn't* happen drowns out that tiny spike.

I'm sure you can conceive of some wacky example at a very special table with very specific opponents where limping AA at the micros is good for you. So maybe I'm only 99.99% for raising AA. I'm not going to argue with the rarest of all exceptions.

The reason I say your argument is right on the border of donk is because you're not weighing any factors. The content of your argument (read it again) is just that playing one way all the time is bad for you. It's not. Raising AA all the time does not give anywhere CLOSE to complete information to your opponents. They will NOT play much better if you raise AA all the time, and they will NOT play much worse if you limp AA every now and then.

oreogod

06-10-2005, 08:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not advocating raising with weak hands, but if you do the same exact thing every single time, your opponents, no matter how stupid they are, will begin to realize.

This doesn't apply to a ring game. You play against so many different people that it is impossible for them to get a read on you. You would have to play thousands of hands to figure out that they were a TAG and capable of raising 22 UTG.

When you play HU it is very important to know your opponent. Not so much in the Party ring game universe where you are playing against so many different players.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

You do realize, if u play a tight aggressive style, raising good hands and open raising when u should, raising depending on opponent/position, etc....its pretty hard to get a read that you have AA or KK. You could have KJs, KQs, AQ, Ak, AJs...etc. They really wont get any sort of clear read until the flop betting action/turn action. They know u may have a decent good holding, but it will be hard for them to tell right off the bat what u have. And this is for opponents that are paying attention.

Can you really imagine a donk player at .50/1.00 really being able to put you on AA playing like this? I dont think so.

EDIT: and thats just for stronger-ish hands.

djg40

06-10-2005, 08:19 PM

You play every hand exactly the same at 2/4? You never switch it up? I doubt that.

I don't limp with AA at .50/1.00, ever. But that isn't the only limit that falls under the "Micro" label. I understand that the players at the lowest limit (on Party) are not typically smart, and they will play the same regardless of what I do. But when and if I move up to the higher limits, I cannot, and do not, expect ABC Poker to win boatloads of money.

Now, I may be wrong, as I have not played higher that .50/1.00. But I tend to think that as the limits I play increase, so too must my ability to switch it up every once in a while.

/donk

oreogod

06-10-2005, 08:26 PM

The only time I see limping with AA is at a really tight table in early position.

Also, note that if u limp-re-raise from EP, you basically give your hand away.

Example of what I did earlier today (also note, I was absolutly sure that if I raised UTG, I would have gotten one, possibly two callers at the most). It really was a crazy tight table, and this was going to be my last hand before I left in search of other pastures:

Absolute Poker 3/6 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, 4 folds, Button calls, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: (5 SB) 8/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (5 players)
SB checks, BB checks, Hero bets, UTG+1 calls, Button folds, SB folds, BB calls.

Turn: (4 BB) 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (3 players)
BB bets, Hero raises, UTG+1 folds, BB calls.

River: (8 BB) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, BB folds.

Final Pot: 9 BB

djg40

06-10-2005, 08:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, note that if u limp-re-raise from EP, you basically give your hand away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I thought the same thing. That is, until I found someone that liked to limp-reraise with KTo, 66, etc.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

oreogod

06-10-2005, 08:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, note that if u limp-re-raise from EP, you basically give your hand away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I thought the same thing. That is, until I found someone that liked to limp-reraise with KTo, 66, etc.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Its obviously player dependant. I hate EP limp re-raisers and love LP limp re-raisers. If a tight player is LRR in EP, most of the time, hes not messing around and wanted action with his hand. LP LRR is usually just messing around, most of the time with a drawing hand.

Greg J

06-10-2005, 08:47 PM

I like limping UTG with 22. It feels so deliciously naughty.

http://www.slatch.com/kittypooh/archives/fg_stewie_pigey.sized.jpg

Aaron W.

06-10-2005, 08:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You play every hand exactly the same at 2/4? You never switch it up? I doubt that.

I don't limp with AA at .50/1.00, ever. But that isn't the only limit that falls under the "Micro" label. I understand that the players at the lowest limit (on Party) are not typically smart, and they will play the same regardless of what I do. But when and if I move up to the higher limits, I cannot, and do not, expect ABC Poker to win boatloads of money.

Now, I may be wrong, as I have not played higher that .50/1.00. But I tend to think that as the limits I play increase, so too must my ability to switch it up every once in a while.

/donk

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play 2/4, so I don't know what I'll do when I get there, but at 1/2 (Paradise) I'm definitely raising AA every single time. I anticipate that I'll do the same at 2/4, but there's no promise there.

If players are getting a read from me that I'm a tight raiser up front, I'm more inclined to raise more hands rather than raise fewer hands.

Also, raising AA every time doesn't make your play ABC. There are still three streets of poker left to play, and that's where you should really be looking to make your money. Winning money at higher limits is more your ability to manipulate your opponents into making big errors at the cost of big bets.

To go back to my original point in the original post, varations in your play are only beneficial whatever money you give up now will be made up in later hands with interest. Varying your play simply to keep players from knowing your hands is *NOT* enough of a reason. The very little information they have is basically useless and they'll still make the exact same mistakes. All you do is lose money.

Finally, I will point out that I'm not against the idea that you can give away information if you always played every hand the exact same way. Of course that's true. I'm arguing that you don't *GAIN* by dramatically varying your preflop play *AT THE MICROS* (At the micros, raising 22 UTG is always worse than limping, limping AA is always worse than raising). I would guess that you need to get beyond 3/6 online games before you begin to need those adjustments. (I don't even know when B&M games get to be like that... maybe $10/20 or $20/40?)

Greg J

06-10-2005, 09:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Put me down all you want...

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, he did not put you down. He put down your argument. Big difference. You need a thicker skin if you want to post here.

Your argument was so wrong it hurt my feelings, for reasons that Aaron and Brad have touched on (along with at least one more they didnt). You yourself, on the other hand, are probably a swell guy.

bottomset

06-10-2005, 09:14 PM

djg40

06-10-2005, 09:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument was so wrong it hurt my feelings, for reasons that Aaron and Brad have touched on (along with at least one more they didnt).

[/ QUOTE ]

For what reasons is it incorrect? What haven't they touched on that you don't agree with? Now, I am still fairly new to the game, and I realize that I don't know everything. In fact, it becomes clearer and clearer that I know very little. However, instead of simply being told that I am wrong, a little reasoning would be more than a little helpful.

I'm trying to improve my play, and any time you or Shill, or Entity, or a whole host of other post, I pay attention, or at least try to. Are you saying that, at these limits, playing the exact same way every time is perfectly fine?

SlantNGo

06-10-2005, 09:34 PM

The concept being presented here is really quite simple. The equity of AA is so high that the only time you wouldn't raise is at an extremely tight table where it would only steal the blinds. And even then I would consider raising it, because I would probably be raising a lot of borderline hands at that type of table.

By limping AA, the bets you lose are a far greater loss than the bets you may lose or miss out on later due to your predictability. With the huge turnaround in ring games at Party and the number of weak players who just don't catch on very quickly, being predictable is a minor sin compared to the sin of not making the most of your huge equity edge.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that, at these limits, playing the exact same way every time is perfectly fine?

[/ QUOTE ]

damaniac

06-10-2005, 09:35 PM

There's a difference between never varying your play, and not raising AA UTG (We just had a nice long and rather fruitless debate about this in SS). Varying your play is somewhat overrated, even at 2/4 and 3/6. You just play so many different opponents, most of whom aren't paying any attention. Even those TAGs who take notes are going to miss a lot of what you do. If you always raised AA preflop in a 3/6 game, you'd not be making a mistake.

That does not mean, however that we do not vary our play. Sometimes I bet my overcards on the flop, turn, and river. Sometimes I hold off on the river, sometimes the turn too, sometimes the flop. Sometimes I pop top pair HU on the flop, sometimes I do it on the turn. Sometimes I check-raise with a strong hand, sometimes I'll bet/3-bet it if I think I can.

The main thing is not to be completely obvious (I always bet my good hands, check my draws and overcards, or whatever) with common situations. But there is probably nothing to be gained at these games by raising 22 UTG, either in direct EV or in whatever you might gain in Shania.

djg40

06-10-2005, 09:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The main thing is not to be completely obvious (I always bet my good hands, check my draws and overcards, or whatever) with common situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was trying to say. I just happened to pick the two extreme examples.

bottomset

06-10-2005, 09:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that, at these limits, playing the exact same way every time is perfectly fine?

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much, at least until you know there are multiple thinking TAGs at the table, and really only when in hands with them .. and even then you shouldn't take it too far

KingOtter

06-10-2005, 09:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main thing is not to be completely obvious (I always bet my good hands, check my draws and overcards, or whatever) with common situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was trying to say. I just happened to pick the two extreme examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but to be completely obvious, the villains must

1. Be paying very close attention
2. Play with you a LOT of hands so that the same situation repeats itself.
3. Know your undercards (which would mean you take them to showdown alot)

I mean even the 'bet overcards' example... they would have to see you hit an overcard on the turn, take it to showdown. Then maybe the next time you pfr you have a high pair, so bet the flop, they think 'he has overcards!' so they call down and you have QQ, and beat them.

I really only see this as an issue where you play the same people day in and day out.

They talk about this some in the books, but I really don't think the books take the online play into account very much. If you play an 8 hour stretch at a B&M, then yeah, you may need to switch up your play a little.

KO

MicroBob

06-10-2005, 10:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I know that PokerRoom showed that the micro pair were not profitable early.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never looked at the PokerRoom stats because I don't think I would get much out of them.

In this particular situation...you are looking at the combined stats of experts AS WELL AS idiots playing 22-55 UTG.

The idiots will go too far with their hand and will naturally lose money.
the experts are supposed to be smart enough to know when to get out of the way when they miss the flop.
They are also supposed to be smart enough to know when their table is loose-passive enough to get away with playing it.

I believe in HEFAP it says that you want 5 players to the flop to have the correct implied odds to play a low pocket pair.
You either want 5 or more....or heads-up.

I seem to remember it saying that 3-4 players seeing the flop was kind of no-man's land for pocket-pairs.

If it's heads-up then your PP has a chance to win even without improvie and just adding the blinds into the pot gives you the odds you need.

With 3-4 players the chances that the flop misses EVERYONE is just too small compared with the amount of bets that you will be able to win on the off-chance that it holds-up unimproved (because you are rather unlikely to get paid-off anyway).

With 5 players you are more likely to have someone catch enough of the flop (hopefully more than one player) to pay you off handsomely if you hit your set.

That was the general logic as best I remember it.

On typical loose-passive, 10-player tables I will limp with any PP and Axs UTG.

If the VPIP for the table is in the 35% range then you can think of that as 4+ players to the flop because of the times the BB gets a free look.

At 35% table-VPIP (with low table PFR) while YOU are playing only 20% or so then you can assume that your opponents are, on the whole, playing more hands than you.
So after you limp the chances that you can get a full 4 limpers out of the remaining players building the table-VP up to 35 is pretty good.

What I'm saying is that if the 'table' VPIP is 35%...and your VPIP is 20%...then the table VPIP EXCLUDING you is closer to 38% or so.

Also - there are some judgements involved AFTER you hit your set as to whether to go for C/R...how you can take down the pot the quickest and/or what kind of draws you can possibly try to give bad-odds too. Stuff like that.
Hitting your set is just the beginning. You still have to either find a way to win the pot and/or extract maximum bets from your opponents depending on the flop.
This is stuff that is kind of tough and I'm still fairly sure I'm not getting it right much of the time.

damaniac

06-10-2005, 11:16 PM

Good point on the Poker Room stats, I was going to mention that. Lots of hands that you should be able to play profitably will be losers because idiots can't play them well (cold-calling 3 bets with 98s seems like a swell idea!).

Another factor to keep in mind is how your opponents play postflop. In fact, this is the most important factor. If they are either loose passive and will call down with anything (collect a few bets pretty much everytime you make your set), or even better, loose aggressive (paid off with many bets when you hit your set), or even some TAGs (willing to give you a few bets if they want to make a play on a weak looking flop, will give you a lot on the rarer occassions that they make their hands), you are in good shape. The only time I'd think about folding is if I were at a tight passive table. And I'd also find a new table. On my laggier days I'd even consider raising UTG, but probably not.

Beavis68

06-11-2005, 01:48 AM

Bob,

Yeah, I don't completely trust the pokerroom stats either, for the reasons you give plus some.

But you can be profitable, and still be playing hands in situations that are not profitable.

The pokerroom stats made me look at my own stats, and I fould I was a loser with 22,33, and 44 early on, even in extremely loose weak games.

All of this "if you can't play 22 UTG profitably you should switch tables" crap I would wagers has no PT stats to back it up and is going by a player perception.

Jaran

06-11-2005, 02:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All of this "if you can't play 22 UTG profitably you should switch tables" crap I would wagers has no PT stats to back it up and is going by a player perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I don't have the biggest database out there but here are my stats over 38K hands:

22- +.3 bb/hd
33- -.12 bb/hd
44- +.18 bb/hd
55- +.06 bb/hd

Not sure if this shows anything or not, but I'm gonna keep limping small pp's UTG.

-Jaran

oreogod

06-11-2005, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All of this "if you can't play 22 UTG profitably you should switch tables" crap I would wagers has no PT stats to back it up and is going by a player perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I don't have the biggest database out there but here are my stats over 38K hands:

22- +.3 bb/hd
33- -.12 bb/hd
44- +.18 bb/hd
55- +.06 bb/hd

Not sure if this shows anything or not, but I'm gonna keep limping small pp's UTG.

-Jaran

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously depending on what table you're at I hope.

Jaran

06-11-2005, 02:35 AM

Well, yah.

-Jaran

damaniac

06-11-2005, 02:39 AM

I'm quite certain that no one has a database large enough to ascertain to any degree of certainty that playing pp's upfront (or any marginal hand) are profitable. You'll get 22-44 1 in 51 hands total. You're in say UTG or UTG+1 around 10% of the time (since your table isn't always 10-handed, it's 10% in my database), so after say 200k totalhands, a pretty large database, you'll have 20,000 hands in those positions, of which you'll have just under 400 pp's 22-44. Think that's a reliable sample size? Cos I don't.

Jaran

06-11-2005, 02:42 AM

Like I said, I don't have the size db needed to make a definitive statement on these hands. But as long as I can continue to play them profitably up front, I will.

-Jaran

benkath1

06-11-2005, 03:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
whatever you might gain in Shania.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to hijack a serious thread, but that made me laugh. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

lowsarider

06-11-2005, 03:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bob,

Yeah, I don't completely trust the pokerroom stats either, for the reasons you give plus some.

But you can be profitable, and still be playing hands in situations that are not profitable.

The pokerroom stats made me look at my own stats, and I fould I was a loser with 22,33, and 44 early on, even in extremely loose weak games.

All of this "if you can't play 22 UTG profitably you should switch tables" crap I would wagers has no PT stats to back it up and is going by a player perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

This newbie agrees with this post. UTG, Im folding the damn thing(22-44 and often 55)and saving my energy for the big blind.