Starting Hands

[Festus22]

As I've come to respect the opinion of many here, I'd like your critique on my starting hand rules. Bear in mind that I deviate somewhat based on number of callers, table mood, etc. but overall, I pretty much stick to it. Also, I play in the no foldem realm exclusively $2 or less online. It's been working pretty good with the exception of my prior post regarding semi-big pairs. Is this too loose, tight, or hands in the wrong group? With this, I play about 2 hands/round. Feel free to hack:

Position
1(BB+1): Call Group 3 or better
2: Call Group 3 or better
3: Group 4 or better
4: Group 5 or better
5: Group 5 or better
6: Group 6 or better
7: Group 7 or better
8: Group 7 or better
9 (SB): Group 7 or better
10 (BB): Group 7 or better (2 bets to me)

Call 2 bets
Group Hands <= 5

Call 3, 4 bets
Group Hands <= 3

Raise to 2 bets with Group 1-2, sometimes Group 3 and even Group 4 depending on position and number of callers.

Raise to 3 or 4 bets with Group 1 and AK, AQs and sometimes AJs.

HAND/GROUP
AA: 1
AKs:1
AK: 2
AQs:2
AQ: 3
AJs:2
AJ: 4
A10s:3
A10:4
A9s:4
A9: 6
A8s:4
A8: 7
Axs:5
KK: 1
KQs:2
KQ: 4
KJs:3
KJ: 5
K10s:3
K10:6
K9s:5
K8s:5
Kxs:6
QQ: 1
QJs:3
QJ: 5
Q10s:4
Q10:5
Q9s:5
Q9: 7
Q8s:5
Qxs:7
JJ: 1
J10s:4
J10:5
J9s:5
J9: 7
J8s:6
1010:2
109s:5
108s:6
107s:7
99: 3
98s:5
97s:7
88: 3
87s:6
86s:7
77: 4
76s:6
75s:7
66: 5
65s:7
55: 6
54s:7
44: 7
33: 7
22: 7

[thomastem]

What group are the pocket chickens?

[Dynasty]

I could tell this was a terrible system as soon as I saw the word "group" appear over and over.

For starters, you should be playing any pair in any position for one bet. There are several other mistakes here and they all have to do with playing "groups".

[Festus22]

I've read the group concept in Abdul Jalib's work, of course S&M, Lee Jones, Hellmuth and others. Obviously, the goal is to assign relative strength to a starting hand and combine those of similar value into groups. What makes this method wrong? What other methods of evaluation are there that can give guidelines into what hands to play in what position? I believe having reasonably defined guidelines is critical to consistent play. Just winging it can't be better, can it?

[Joe Tall]

When I first started out I used to look at the game similar to the method you have described. However, now I play completely based on game conditions and opponent actions and involvement.

Example: take a hand like 88, I've 3-bet w/88 in EMP to isolate a Loose Agressive's UTG raise and I've folded it preflop to a Tight strong agressive player who raised in early position, knowing he held JJ+.

The dynamics of the game are too large to just stick to a rigid chart/list of hands by group and position. It is a great way to learn, but keep reading here and you'll find that situational dependant descisions dominate how the game is played.

[Play Tight]

I started a similar thread last week about my particular starting hand requirements. I cannot figure out how to link it to this post but look back for a thread called Starting Hands - What do you think? Its probably about 5 to 7 pages back. This might be to tight for you but works for me.

I received some great advice and some idiotic advice as well. Dynasty replyed there as well with no real advice just a post to rip on my starting hands and also stated there that you must play any pair for 1 bet from any postion. I lost all respect for his criticism based on that comment alone and now I see he has posted it here also. This has to be one of the worst pieces of advice I have ever saw. You do not know from EP or MP if you are playing for 1 bet or not. You should only play low pocket pairs (7's and below) from LP in an unraised pot. Your odds are very low to make a set on the flop and if in EP or LP you cannot bet only call, probably calling dead.

LarryJoeFish offered a great piece of advice as far as playing not only postionally but also based on the style of play on the table in general and based upon who is betting in particular.

Basic idea that alot of players do not ahear to: EP - only the best hands, MP - a few more hands, LP - many hands. But all hands played must be strong and ready to withstand a raise from behind. And the general rule of play is if you miss on the flop, MUCK and forget about it. The next hand will happen in less than a minute or so.

If you see my post mentioned earlier you will notice that I play even tighter then Lee Jones says to. I realize that I could play many more hands but I feel more comfortable in no fold'em hold'em knowing that I'm playing the nuts and not just crossing my fingers and hoping for a magical flop or an amazing suck out. Rememeber the fewer flops you see the less you lose to the rake as well.

Find starting hands that work for you and push them hard but muck when you miss. After you feel more comfortable in your abalities (both in playing certain hands postionally and reading the style of play) you will adjust your game and starting hand requirements. Good luck in finding what works for you.

[Dynasty]

The game Festus22 describes and the one you described (I think) were both low-limit games which can almost always be counted on for being loose-passive. The great advantage a skilled player has in this game is that he is able to play more hands in all positions because the pot will rarely be raised behind you. When it is raised behind you, you can often put that opponent on a very narrow range of premium hands and play accordingly post-flop.

The first hands each of you need to add to your starting hand selection is the pocket pairs. When the flop is routinely being taken by half the table or more, you are giving up way too much EV by folding even 22 UTG. You will flop a set or better once in every 8.5 hands. You will nearly have the proper pot odds to make the call.

However, most beginning players don't learn for quite a while that pot odds have little to do with playing pocket pairs. Pocket pairs are profitable when you have opponents who will pay you off for multiple bets on the post-flop streets. These players are found in abundance in low-limit games. When your 22 makes a set on a flop of J,7,2 rainbow, you are going to get called in lots of places by hands like J9o, 76s, ATo, KQo, 88, and quite a few more who are drawing stone cold dead. They'll even call raises on post-flop streets with all those hands.

I feel more comfortable in no fold'em hold'em knowing that I'm playing the nuts...Rememeber the fewer flops you see the less you lose to the rake as well.

This is an atrocious way to play the game. You rarely need the nuts to win at the showdown. The best players not only play the nuts but also profitably play in marginal situations. In fact, the ultra-tight players I've observed in low-limit games look like they're barely better than break-even. Those who push marginal edges can slaughter the games. In my middle limit games, you've got no chance playing ultra-tight.

As for the rake, you only pay it if you win the pot. So, I'd like to pay as much rake as possible.

LarryJoeFish offered a great piece of advice as far as playing not only postionally but also based on the style of play on the table in general

That's why you play the pocket pairs. The style of the table in almost all low-limit game allow it.

BTW, I know Larry. He's a bit...er..."enthusiastic" about unusual plays like raising with 72o (which he suggested to me). Nice guy, though.

[Festus22]

Thanks for your reply. I did find your post and the starting systems are similar. Being a holdem newbie, I find having a system invaluable. No system is exact and differences of opinion are bound to exist (even Jalib and S&M are still arguing that point) but to play within a repeatable structure I feel is necessary while you develop better player and game reading skills.

And it was good to hear that some of the more experienced players started out this way. You can't learn to run until you learn to walk (crawl in my case?).

Good Luck to you!

[Ed Miller]

Dynasty replyed there as well with no real advice just a post to rip on my starting hands and also stated there that you must play any pair for 1 bet from any postion. I lost all respect for his criticism based on that comment alone and now I see he has posted it here also. This has to be one of the worst pieces of advice I have ever saw. You do not know from EP or MP if you are playing for 1 bet or not. You should only play low pocket pairs (7's and below) from LP in an unraised pot. Your odds are very low to make a set on the flop and if in EP or LP you cannot bet only call, probably calling dead.

Dynasty's advice is almost always good and this was no exception. In a game where players go too far with their hands (i.e. "no foldem" as you guys like to call it) pocket pairs gain tremendous value, as you will gain many bets postflop while your opponents are drawing near dead. Even if you think it is relatively likely that the pot will be raised (once) behind you, I would still play all pairs from up front if I thought that my opponents would give significantly excessive action after the flop.

IMO, you and Festus both should read the starting hand advice in HPFAP. It is quite good and mentions things like playing small pairs from up front in loose games.

[Play Tight]

Major,

As I just wrote to Dynasty in another post everyone is entitled to play as they choose. I will not ever be convinced that a pocket pair with a 4% chance of hitting a set on the flop is a good play. If you miss (which is most of the time,) you have nothing. Especially in a loose game I will dump pocket 7's or less from any postion, becasue when you miss there is almost guranteed to be a bigger pair. 4% = 1 out of 25 = you paying a $3 call ($3/6 game) 24 times before you hit a set on the flop. Thats $72 before you get a set. Most $3/6 pots aren't $72 to begin with. It just doesn't make sense to me.

But as I said to each their own. I will have to respectfully disagree with the low pocket pair thought process.

[Joe Tall]

BTW, I know Larry. He's a bit...er..."enthusiastic" about unusual plays like raising with 72o (which he suggested to me). Nice guy, though.

Dyn, we've never met, I don't believe. But I guess you 'know' me via my posts.

I never said this about 72o /forums/images/icons/mad.gif (unless you can show me some strange post where I actually did say it, and maybe you misunderstood some hypothetical point /forums/images/icons/wink.gif ).

However, I'm tempted to play 72o like AA someday (my reverse Tommy Angelo theory), but I've never told anyone about that. Subconciously, I think I'm hoping for a winning showdown where I can shrug my shoulders and say in my jackass-sarcastic way, 'How could I not, seventy-two, it's my birth year' /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Play Tight and Fetus: Dyn doesn't mean any harm, he's a bit, um, 'frank' at times (*cough* all the time *cough*) but it works. It has worked me into a winning player and next time I'm in Vegas, I'll shake his hand and thank him. (that's after I punch him in the mouth....only kidding /forums/images/icons/grin.gif )

Peace,
Larry Joe

[Festus22]

Quoting HPFAP, Early Position "If the game is passive, you prefer the suited connector to the small pair. This is because a "set" will have trouble collecting a lot of bets. On the other hand, if the suited connector flops something like a gut shot draw it won't necessarily be bet out of the pot".

Interesting in that the value of the suited connector keeps being reinforced. The previous paragraph mentions that small pairs are better played in loose aggressive (but not too aggressive!) games where the implied odds are better.

[Ed Miller]

Ummmm... you will hit a set on the flop 11.8% of the time, not 4%. I assume you got 4% because that's the chance that the first card on the flop will be your set. You get two more shots, though.. hehe.

[Ed Miller]

That is correct. Small pairs play better when the game is aggressive after the flop while suited connectors and suited Aces play better when the game is passive after the flop.

Any of those hands is profitable from any position in a weak passive game, however (except for the smaller suited connectors, because they just aren't very strong hands to begin with).

[Ed Miller]

However, I'm tempted to play 72o like AA someday (my reverse Tommy Angelo theory), but I've never told anyone about that.

Cat's out of the bag now... /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Dynasty]

Larry,

I'm sorry. I have you confused with another Larry that posts here who just recently changed is 2+2 ID. He's a dealer who used to be in Las Vegas and is currently dealing in Tunica.

[Joe Tall]

Holy-o-cow, Dynasty apologized. He is human. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

So, I guess you don't 'know' me, however:

It doesn't change the fact that I am a nice guy.

I am waiting to raise that 72o. (my 'reverse Tommy A')

And I might punch you in the mouth (no, no, still kidding, Dynasty, I would never, actually, I'm so nice of a guy I've never hit anyone in my entire life, but being 6'7", I guess I never had too.) /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Peace, and it's all good, thanks for all your help,
Larry Joe

[TBone]

Festus,

It's somewhat difficult to determine the groupings since hands are listed in order. (Ax, followed by Kx, followed by Qx, etc) It would be easier to determine your SHR if you could group them in their actual groups.

Dynasty will probably flame me, but I do think groups have their place in poker--particularly for those newer to the game. Everyone has been correct in stating that you cannot have a SHR guideline of any sort as a concrete guide--it must adapt according to the table you're playing as well as the number of callers thus far, (ie. is A9o on button really a strong hand w/ 6 callers already? is 75s in middle position a good hand to limp in with only 1 caller so far?) but I still play somewhat of a group structure when playing online--I'm new and I've found it's helped me to play hands that will help me win more pots and will minimize my plays of hands that will lose me a lot, not to mention not win the pot.

Also, you never play offsuit connectors under J10? I'll typically go down to 76, and if I'm feeling lucky on button 54.

T

[Ed Miller]

Also, you never play offsuit connectors under J10? I'll typically go down to 76, and if I'm feeling lucky on button 54.

I generally don't play offsuit connectors below QJ... though I'm willing to conceed that I might be marginally too tight there. Hands like 76o and 54o are almost certainly not profitable, though.

[TBone]

That must be what's holding me back than! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I've based a lot of my pre-flop hand plays from the groupings by Sklansky, and only play those hands mentioned in late position. (particularly on the button) Checking my late position hand history in Poker Tracker however, you are correct as it appears anything less than T9o connectors is not profitable. I know Lee Jones also talks about this in his low limit book.

More to incorporate into the playbook. Danka.

T

[bernie]

some hands in a certain group play better in certain situations than other hands in the same group.

id recommend learning why some 'types' of hands play better in certain 'texture' of games. THAT will go much farther than blindly playing a hand because of what 'group' it's in.

i cant remember the last time i played a hand with what group it's in being a factor. but i guess it is a starting point. but with more experience, youll realize why this isnt a great system to use.

at least try splitting the hands inside a group into sub groups for table texture purposes. this includes raising and limping plays for certain hands in a group.

b

[bernie]

i think both responses you gave in both threads were really good.

one last thing about playing only nut-type hands. even fish will recognize a nut player. i was one way back. and your action slows to a simmer. you will get minimal action on youre good hands. which will eventually force you to change youre play a little. otherwise, you will only be just above break even because youll be missing many opportunities that are out there.

as you said, in loose-passive games, you want to be in as many hands as possible. you wont be charged much to draw, and theyll play way too far with their hands. great combination that allows you to play more hands.

one should also be aware enough to realize when the texture changes enough that you have to tighten up small pair play in EP. it's really not that hard to keep track of.

of course, some LL games can get very wild. and that's a different adjustment altogether. and as you said in the other thread, there is no way to tailor a game to compensate for both types of games. there are major adjustments to do.

ta-ta!

b

[bernie]

that passage isnt tailored to loose games where players will chase and will pay you off postflop. it's tailored to tighter postflop play.

id suggest also reading the loose games section.

b

[bernie]

starting out with groups is fine. it gives a starting point.

here's one thing i did that helped understand 'types' of hands.

take 3 highlighter pens. make 1 SH(shorthanded/HU) 1 multiway, and one for both. mark the hands according to what general situation they play better in. this should give you a deeper idea as to how to see how hands play in certain situations preflop. along with how to better play them preflop by raising, calling or folding.

once you get a handle on this, and understand why some hands play better in some games, youll find some hands in the groups unplayable while others are very playable.

hope this helps a little

b

[Festus22]

From what I've read and what I've experienced so far in the low limit realm, I'd say the following:

Typical Loose Passive Game w/5 or more callers PF
Increase in Value:
Suited Connectors
Small Pairs
A-xs
K-xs
Decrease in Value
KQo, KJo, QJo
Semi big pairs (QQ, JJ, TT - not junk by any means but not as premium as they would be in a tighter game)

Loose Aggressive
Similar to the above but a bit tighter

Tight Passive - 3 or fewer callers (is there such a thing LL?)
Increase in Value:
Big pairs
Big cards (AQ, KQ)
Decrease in Value:
Hands that need to be made

Tight Aggressive
Same as above even more so


I know there are positional factors, individual player types and predictability considerations that can enter into the decision process but in general, would you guys agree on the above?

[Glurfle]

For loose aggressive games, I'd tighten up a lot more. I drop all the lower suited connectors, Axs, Kxs, and baby pairs unless I'm in late position and think I can sneak in for one bet. (When I think of a loose aggressive game, I mean one where there's a good chance that there will be a raise preflop, and I'd rather not play any of those for more than 1 bet.)