A simple survey

[Godfather80]

As a recently devoted student of Limit Hold Em, I am trying to play tight and aggressive like Sklansky advises. My problem is that I am constantly having to rethink exactly what those two terms - tight and aggressive - really mean. This is not as easy as I originally thought it would be. Now to the point, I have begun to understand the level of aggression that one must show in order to be profitable, but I remain confused about tightness. I try to follow Sklansky's hand rankings their positional values when I play, but I am still left wondering whether I am tight, too tight, or not tight enough.

So here is my question to all of you: ON THE AVERAGE, what is your ratio of hands folded vs hands played.

For example, I believe mine to be about 10:1 on the average.

[Gamblor]

As with everything else in poker, it depends on the game.
Consider how many people see the flop and for how many bets.

In a normal mid-limit tight game (which I assume you are NOT playing given your beginner status), you're about right.

But in the games you're likely playing, i.e. low limit no fold'em hold'em games, you can limp in with pretty much any suited cards that include one above a J. The key to these games, according to HPFAP, is seeing the flop cheaply - that way, the random gutshot draws and backdoor flushes aren't getting correct odds (if you've read S+M, then you know what I'm talking about). Only raise with absolute premium hands, i.e. QQ,AQs,AK. This is what they say, so if you're only seeing 10% of the flops, you're just getting terrible cards.

The best way is to look around and average out the number of players seeing the flop for how many bets - is it usually 4-5? or 6-7? If you're seeing about 3/4 the flops as everyone else, you're about tight enough. Any less and you're leaving winning hands in the muck. Any more, and you're hemorrhaging cash into the fish's hands.

Shane

[Homer]

Are you saying that you play about 9% of hands preflop? Does this include the blinds or not? If it does then you are playing wayyyyy too tight, and if it doesn't you are playing a little bit too tight.

-- Homer

[Huh]

I think this advice sets you up for a huge roller-coaster ride. In no fold'em games I try(not always successfully) to tighten up a good deal. I stay away from some of the big unsuited cards, but loosen up on suited aces, small pairs, and suited connectors(I'll play them earlier if the flop is always 6-7 ways or 4-5 ways with very little raising). In late position, I frequently call with suited Kings, but I am trying to do this less. I play less agressively with AK late, and see about 23% of the flops, including my free/discounted looks in the blind(which happens quite often in these games).

I don't think calling suited Queens and Jacks is a good idea in these games, unless they are married.

This has been successful for me.

[nef]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
you can limp in with pretty much any suited cards that include one above a J. The key to these games, according to HPFAP, is seeing the flop cheaply - that way, the random gutshot draws and backdoor flushes aren't getting correct odds (if you've read S+M, then you know what I'm talking about).

[/ QUOTE ]

Another important issue to consider when deciding to see the flop with something like Q7s, is how well you play when just a queen flops. Can you identify when the pair of queens is best, and when it is in trouble, and win or save bets in these cases? Position is a factor in these decisions, so are your opponents.

I don't think seeing the flop cheaply is a key to these games. Seeing the flop cheaply with Aces, Kings, AKs etc. is not a good thing.

Another way to make sure that backdoor flushes and random gutshots aren't getting the correct odds to draw is to bet, raise, and check raise your hands appropriately.

[PokerPrince]

I don't think there's necessarily a problem with him playing this tight. He mentioned he was new to the game, meaning his postflop play is not up to par with someone as experienced as yourself. I believe that players just learning the nuances of the game should play extra-tight preflop for the first few hundred hours. This will train them to not only be more patient, but make up for some of their postflop blunders. When they gain a better grasp of the key concepts, they can play a few more hands, especially in LP.

PokerPrince

[Ralle]

On average I estimate that I play something like 15% of the hands when I'm not in the blinds.

[huzitup2]

This response may not seem to apply, but it actually does address your issue quite well.

*

My best friend has recently begun teaching me the finer points of NO LIMIT holdem; the game is making a [small] comeback - not to mention there are an almost endless number of tournaments that use this structure. BTW, he plays N-L at a better than excellent, somewhat below world class caliber.

*

I was playing in a $1-$2 blind "live" (as opposed to online) game with eight opponents; the "brightest" player in this group could probably still be victimized by the "pull my finger" gag :-)

I had just won a small (~ $30) pot with AKs in my small blind.

The next hand, my button, saw all six [non-blind] players limp in; I mucked my hand and walked across the room to get a cup of water - quickly so as not to be dealt out of the next hand.

I didn't return to see what won (or even what the board had been); I got back just as the cards were being dealt.

Again, everyone limped in, and again I mucked.

"Bob" tapped me on the shoulder to get my attention.

I turned around to look at him - he had a blank expression on his face. I asked what was wrong.

He asked me if I knew how many starting hands there were in holdem: I replied, "1,326".

"Correct", he said. He then asked me to estimate how many of them should be played on the button in N-L with the entire field in for the minimum.

Now it was my turn for the blank expression.

He answered, "depending on (he then listed a half dozen or so factors that might be used to decide) and the size of your stack" - - -

*

THIRTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY SIX !

He then suggested that I throw away the WORST HUNDRED or so if everyone limped and I was in the "cut-off". ("C/O" means to the right of the button just in case you haven't heard the term before).

He was 110% correct.

*

The moral of the story is this.

The NUMBER of hands you are - or should - be playing is one of the most misleading AND confusing stats in holdem.

I have played in [limit] games in which you could not PRY a hand like 6-5/suited away from me if I was first to act.

- If the average flop is seen by 6-7 players and there is very little raising, I think even the tightest of players would agree that this is a [slightly] profitable hand.

Then there are games where any hand I play first in from early needs to be a hand that is worth a raise; I may CHOOSE not to raise with said hand, but it needs to be a hand that CAN be played for a raise.

This list would include,

AA - 88, AKs - JTs, AQs / KJs, AJs, ATs, and AKoff / AQoff

*

*

*

If you were patient enough to read that entire post, I guess I owe you at least an ESTIMATE of the percentage of hands you should be playing in (what I assume) is a "typical" low limit [2-4/3-6] game.

Not counting your big blind - in most low limit games this is a free play well over half of the time - you should be taking 2 flops per round in a 9 or 10 handed game. (This does include your small blind).

That is very close to the response of 22% that was offered to you in an earlier response.

I hope that helped.

Best wishes,

- Chris

*

P.S. You said you had read the "2+2" book(s); I hope that includes POKER ESSAYS I, II and III.

I think it was "I" that summed it up the best -

"In holdem, no matter how well you play before the flop, if you don't play [extremely] well post-flop don't expect to do better than break even at best".

Perfect pre-flop play will probably not even make you a break even player unless the game is very soft. (My words)

If you don't own these three volumes, let loose with a hundred and get them - they are ALL fantastic.

Note to Mason: You did get just slightly lazy in "III", but it's still a "must read".

Were you holding back a little so you'd have material left for "IV" :-) ? ? ?