Coilean and Dcifrths talk theory...

[Senor Choppy]

The only thing that's really being measured here is bb/hand with aces and winrate. I doubt the amount people win with AA varies that much, so the only thing being compared is overall $ won.

It really shouldn't be that difficult for a majority of people to give an exact answer here.

[Coilean]

Here was my answer. Assume a typical party win rate around 2.5BB/100 hands, and an average around +3BB per pocket aces. With odds of getting aces at 1:220, you should lose 3BB/221hands*100hands = 1.36BB/100hands. At +2BB per pocket kings, that's another 0.9BB/100 hands. So these two hands seem to represent around 90% of your win rate.

But that's not the whole story: you were paying blinds in that time as well. So assuming a full 10-handed game, 100 hands represents 7.5BB in blinds, which you have to win back before you even start to show a profit. So at a combined 2.26BB/100 hands, AA and KK probably represent around 23% of your gross win rate after accounting for the blinds (I suspect much of the rest of it was "won" by using your preflop discount with pseudorandom blind hands). But regardless of the percentage, you're going to show a mediocre profit at best if you don't play your aces or kings [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

[MortalNuts]

Interesting post. I think the more interesting, though much less quantifiable question, is how folding say BOTH Aces and Kings affects the EV of all your other hands. Presumably it decreases them, in that now semi-observant opponents will realize they don't have to fear those two hands and will respond in kind; e.g., your UTG raise of 99 will get played back at more by someone with AJ if he knows you will never have AA/KK in that spot. So not only have you lost the EV of AA and KK, the EV you are getting from 99 has also dropped ever so slightly. That's probably a tiny effect, since the number of times it would really alter an opponent's play is small. But whatever, it's fun to think about it.

the variance question is also interesting; I have no real idea how to give a numerical answer there.

just my 2c.

cheers,

mn

[mike l.]

"So these two hands seem to represent around 90% of your win rate."

so if i read you right my advice to brother to only play AA-JJ, AK, and AQs was maybe a tad too loose?

damn maybe ill start playing online again and just play those hands and see how i do. will i win and how much and at what level will i start to lose?

[Senor Choppy]

You have to play many more hands than this to stay in the black. If you weren't defending your blinds without one of these 6 hands, even good players would be losing a few big bets per 100.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
"So these two hands seem to represent around 90% of your win rate."

so if i read you right my advice to brother to only play AA-JJ, AK, and AQs was maybe a tad too loose?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could say that we only play other hands for deception!

[mike l.]

"If you weren't defending your blinds without one of these 6 hands"

yes i know that. but what if those are the only hands i played outside of the blinds?

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you weren't defending your blinds without one of these 6 hands"

yes i know that. but what if those are the only hands i played outside of the blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]

I loose lowlimit games you might show a profit, but you would be giving up to much EV. In higher limits you would become to predictable.

This strategy would probably work best in a hyperagressive and somewhat loose game.

[Senor Choppy]

I checked PT and the 6 hands you listed accounted for 55% of the amount of $ I made outside of the blinds. Had I not played them, my winrate would've gone from x to -x.

You would have to be one of the world's best players in the blinds to overcome such a huge handicap and show a profit with such a limited number of hands.

If you were able to play pocket pairs down to 88, and aces down to ATo, it looks like you could still have a respectable win rate.