Basic Strat question

[pittsburgh_kid]

I've studied a lot of the books, and logged quite a few hours, and clearly, the biggest hurdle facing any player is discipline.
In some ways, the easiest way to maintain it would be to have a fairly rigid system to follow that allowed for no deviation. I think, considering how most folks play in public cardrooms, house games and private clubs, such a system could be immensely profitable.

What do people think about the following:
Play any hand where the smallest card is 10.
Play any pair, limping if 8 and lower, raising 9 & higher.

That's it. fold everything else. If in early position be more inclined to fold if there's a raise, and if in late, be more inclined to raise if no one has.

Would you get killed playing this way? Of course, after the flop, player has to make rational decisions.

By playing this way, you'll surprise people with trips once in a while, you'll have top pair pretty often, and you'll be drawing to big straights and flushes.

How much do you lose if you never play 'speculative' hands? They seem to only cost money, esp. in looser games with average 5 - 7 players seeing the flop. I've had more success when I am only playing big cards and doing a lot of raising to cut the field, and a lot of folding with little cards, even on the button.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Play any hand where the smallest card is 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was forced to play the same hand over and over in an average game and I had to choose either QTo or 67s, I don't think I would choose the one that is within your rules.

A system like this is something you give to a friend who has never played before and wants to hang out with you at the table and not lose all his cash, not really something a knowledgable player should be using.

[Cigwin]

Discipline is certainly a problem and one that I have trouble with. However, your method is probably only good for a beginner. It doesn't take into account how the others are playing, how many are playing, and position.

[Dynasty]

This is a very poor starting hand system. It will have you playing some hands which should be folded and folding several hands which should be played. The net drain on your winrate should make it almost impossible for you to beat anything but the smallest limits. Even then, it won't be for much.

[ QUOTE ]
clearly, the biggest hurdle facing any player is discipline.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's so hard about not making stupid decisions? If you have a problem with discipline, I doubt a system is going to change that. Your problem will just cause you to violate you system.

[GuyOnTilt]

Let's put it this way...I'd be happy to sit down at a table where players were playing according to your system. You'd have them playing hands like QJo and KTo UTG and mucking hands like A9s and 87s on the button. Your system may be a good way to start thinking for someone who's sitting down at a homegame for the first time, but it definitely wouldn't be "profitable" as is your goal.

[Mikey]

"What's so hard about not making stupid decisions? If you have a problem with discipline, I doubt a system is going to change that. Your problem will just cause you to violate your system?"

Dynasty I know players that follow basic strategy for blackjack by the book, and I've seen them play for long periods of time following basic strategy, not deviating at all, not one bit, not even on hunches.

I've also seen these same guys play poker, and their discipline deteriorates after about 2 hours of play.

If there was a system in hold'em, I believe that they would follow it, "by the book".

[Cosimo]

I don't think the books explain the "system" very well. WLLHE does the best job of any of them. I copied the summaries from the early/mid/late/blinds chapters and used that as my guide, and even then there were some changes I could make that would improve the charts much more.

Memorizing Sklansky's tables before you've played a thousand hands or so is misspent energy, I think. There are too many caveats, and the advice so spread out, that HEP and HEPFAP makes for a difficult reference.

One COULD make a simple "system" from HEPFAP's rules, though. It would be fairly long (a table 5 columns wide, 40 rows long, and with 2-5 characters per entry), but that kind of organization would make it easier to follow.

-Cosimo

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
I've studied a lot of the books, and logged quite a few hours, and clearly, the biggest hurdle facing any player is discipline

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions about poker. Learning to play well is much harder than getting some discipline.

[Arizona Mike]

[ QUOTE ]
What do people think about the following:
Play any hand where the smallest card is 10.
Play any pair, limping if 8 and lower, raising 9 & higher.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pick up TTH and play those hands (just those hands!) and see how well you do. I'd definately do that before I wagered my bankroll on that stragety at the casino.

Arizona Mike

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Except for the NL "system" described in TPFAP, a system for hold'em is going to be difficult to make work. The only reason the NL system is so effective (tho not perfect) is because it reduces all the decisions to preflop, and allows for no more post flop betting.

In limit poker, this will never be the case. The original poster's "system" is as Dynasty described, very flawed, leaving good hands folded and bad hands played. Any player who's thoroughly familiar with the 2+2 limit hold'em books, and is also very experienced, and a long term winner, will no longer even be worried about the exact hand groupings etc. They understand that the books contain guidelines, not a system of absolutes. No such system is likely to ever be discovered for limit hold'em, it's just got too many variables, especially post flop.

al

[Cosimo]

Hmmm. Some meta-issues here.

If you lack the discipline to fold suited junk from early position, you will probably never be a winning player. Strong postflop play is also necessary to be a winning player, and strong play there also requires discipline. You have to be able to fold on the flop, throw away aces when they're beat, and avoiding calling down to the river with crap draws. I think table and player considerations are, by nature, outside of anything that could rightly be called a "system", and also necessary to consider when deciding how to play.

There's no "system" that could cover enough of the possibilities to be sufficient to win.

On the other hand, I think it's possible to codify current best practices better than what's out there, which is my main beef in my previous post. As is a recurring theme on these pages, there's some benefit in NOT helping your fellow man. =)

-Cosimo