SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

(catchy title, huh?)

Hey guys,

In a nutshell: I see no reason to play anything other than twenty hands, total.

---------------------------------

I've only recently been interested in improving my Limit Hold'em, so I went out and bought SSH. Very impressive, received it last night and I'm blown away by all the subtlities I was missing.

That said, I've always been a huge fan of abbreviated strategies (for multi-tabling purposes) and while I can respect the book's emphasis on maximuming your EV as opposed to minimizing the variance (and I recall a post by Ed addressing just this issue), but what info I've come across, suggests there is simply very little to be gained outside of the top twenty hands.

---------------------------------------------

Zipping by Pokerroom stats, I found that the top twenty hands (which, incidentally, virtually mirrored Skalansky's top 3 groups) were responsible for 90% of the EV of all players recorded.

Monster and big and medium pairs, big and little suited broadways, and big offsuit broadways.

On page 47 of SSH, Ed et al. give a chart that represents an expert player's database of 60,000 hands. Sure enough, right around pocket 88s ... EV falls off rapidly.

Of course, none of this can be argued to definitively typcast the EV from a winning player, but taken together it appears that regardless of your skill level, the top 20 hands are responsible for about 80% to 90% of your EV.

--------------------------------------

As a new player to limit, if I can make 80% of my EV by only playing half the general recommended starting hands, and compensate by playing twice the tables (8-10?), wouldn't this be near optimal?

Variance would likely reduce, and *perfect* play would be more readily attainable.

Even 80% of a winning player's EV should amount to about 1 bb/hr, so at the 2/4 level ... this is still an impressive return on your money.

I know such an approach wouldn't work in a live casino, but online?

Sorry for the rushed nature of this post, I had hoped it to be a bit more polished, but this can't be a new idea ... so any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Best,
Zim

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

Nothing wrong with playing the top 20 hands, as im sure others will say, it's +EV but it's not maximum EV, if you're interested in maximizing your edge to the max there are many marginal hands to play, however you can't forget that if you're avoiding all marginal situations, many observant opponents (anyone using PT) is going to be getting out of you way which will lower your edge some as well, at lower limits this shouldn't be a problem.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

hi Zim

---------------------------------

interesting post, but unless you're playing against total idiots, I don't think simple strategies are going to work very well. By playing this tight I think you are setting yourself up for failure against better players.

--------------------------------------------------


also, having your win rate drop by even .25bb/100 will make your variance much higher.


-------------------------------------------------------


also, it's more fun to play a lot of hands.








-------------------------------------------------------


if you want to make the big bucks, you need to learn how to play good poker.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

How are you figuring Position in, or are you?

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

If you sat at my table and I saw that you played super tight guess what? Every time you raise I fold. I am only reraising when I have you beat. If there were no blinds your play would be fine but there are. You will get eaten alive by blinds as no one is ever going to play with you when you are in a hand.

I used to be really tight and I remember one night live where anytime I raise they just all folded in a 10/20. I lost money and I didn't know how? I didn't take any bad beats, folded right, raised right. I just never got any action and when I did they had a set or better.

You have to play more hands, position, and be aggressive. Then players won't know what the hell you have when everytime you enter a pot you are raising just about. 1st in raise, 5 limpers raise on the button, 2 weak limpers, raise.

Lots of hands your missing that can win big bucks. You just have to know when to play them.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

no offense here, because i think that its actually fairly good discussion... but this is similar to me going to chess and saying that the queen is the best piece so ill just move that one around the board the whole time.

poker is an incredibly complex game... in some games and situations its profitable to raise 27o preflop, in others you will be folding AK. its a long road and there are no shortcuts, just go play and get the experience and you will see how and why to use the concepts from SSH and other books.

eventually you will realise that the profitability of those hands is just an outcome of overall strategy

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

[ QUOTE ]
eventually you will realise that the profitability of those hands is just an outcome of overall strategy

[/ QUOTE ]

Quoted for emphasis.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

Not to mention the majority of players are losing players so those stats that you are looking at are skewed. For example I played 98o profitabily against a maniac yesterday at my local casino, but I expect if you check those stats 98o will be a big loser. Playing marginal hands is all about looking for the right situation, and I expect that these hands make up more than 10% of a good players profit.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

for the record. his variation should remain almost unchanged. look at the variance of 30VPIP player and 15VPIP players its not a huge difference... at lease from the data i just casually glanced through.

your coefficient of variation however will change drastically if your winrate drops a small amount however.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

[ QUOTE ]
(catchy title, huh?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen catchier but not many

[ QUOTE ]

As a new player to limit, if I can make 80% of my EV by only playing half the general recommended starting hands, and compensate by playing twice the tables (8-10?), wouldn't this be near optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

As new player to limit I see nothing wrong with restricting your preflop choices to minimize the dificulty of your postflop play. This will also help you from going bust before you even get your feet wet. In the long run it is a bad idea cause as many have said you become predictable and you are not making all that you could off the fish. At limits less then 1/2 I don't think many would notice and the few that do have more then enough fish to pick on rather then squezzing quarters out of a "predictable" player.

When I started LHE I did something similar only with regards to position. It looked something like.

Super Simple Super Tight Preflop strategy
Early Position
Raise: JJ+, AQs+, AKo (7 hands)
Call: 88+, AJs, KQs, AQo (6 hands)

Middle Position
Raise: eveything I would raise or call in EP (13 hands)
Call: KQo, AJo, and any 2 suited higher then ten (8 hands)

Late Position:
Raise: everything I would raise from MP (13 hands)
Call: all of MP's calls and 22+, A8s+, T9s, 98s, and any two offsuit that are higher then ten (24 hands)
* If first in raise with all playable hands in late position.
** If it's raised in front of you only play the hands you raise from EP and 3bet/cap with them

As you can see all totaled I was only paying 37 hands and it averaged out over the positions so I was playing about 13% of hands, and raising 6-7%

This worked till I got used to my play, and would probably show a decent win at 8-10 tables and keep you from blowing your bankroll in a hurry.
It will not win the maximum and it will not trick anybody but at 1/2 or lower you can make fairly easy money like this. You have to play them at least decently postflop as well.

Edited for further clarity and to add the low PP in late position category.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

Someone needs to link the "Shnnia" post. That would answer most of the question right there.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

Thanks Nomad,

Much appreciated, that was exactly the sort of thing I looking for ... about two days ago, lol.

Dove into 2/4 limit over at Pokerroom, and decided to try to learn the game proper. Limited myself to two tables, and with SSH perched in one hand, I've been actually having a bit of fun trying to figure out the boards, all the hidden outs, pot equity, etc ...

It's rather fun to spot all the bad play. I mean, really bad. Capping the bets preflop with 94o kinda bad.

(he, naturally, flopped a straight)

I can't speak for the profitability (after 2341 rounds, I've earned exactly 20 cents an hour), but I'm new and have made some really stupid calls.

I'm certain my win rate would have been double otherwise.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thanks again.

Best,
Zim

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

Thanks threeonefour,

I had not figured on this. I had naturally assumed that the more borderline plays would be more susceptible to incorrect calls, and result in greater fluctuations.

This does not seem to be the case.

And, actually, if I look at my own play. The big swings generally come about more from the big pairs getting cracked, than limping in with K9s.

Thanks for the feedback.

Best,
Zim

Thanks gentlemen,
 

As noted above, I've found your recommendations to ring true. Can't say whether playing 20 hands is optimal or not ... however ...

Poker is so much more interesting when you are actually playing it, as opposed to treating it as an assembly line.

But in any event, thanks for the reminder that the EV of AA doesn't come about in a vacuum. It requires the other hands to flesh it out a little.

Best,
Zim

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

Initially, I was only going to take the top hands:

AA KK QQ JJ TT 99 88
-- AK AQ AJ AT A9
-- -- KQ KJ KT
-- -- -- QJ

AKo AQo AJo
--- KQo

And "split" them for raising purposes. Early I'd raise the strongest ten, late I'd raise all twenty.

I wouldn't bother to add more hands, only use position for aggression.

(I'd probably throw in some blinds steals, ten offsuit or better around the button, and limp with any suited hand in the SB position, that sorta thing.)

I know this sounds overly simplistic, but I've observed some truly dreadful play at the low limits.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure the value of this sort of thing. Even if it worked at the $1 tables, I suspect you won't make much more than $10/hour, even playing 10 tables.

Better to learn the game properly, and make millions.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Best,
Zim

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

Hey jba,

Lol ... last time I put dashes in my posts.

Agreed on all counts.

Much appreciated.
Zim

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

Cheers Soko,

I might still play with this sort of thing a little, but for some bizarre reason ... I'm suddenly obsessed with playing competent poker.

I blame you guys.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Best,
Zim

\"Shnnia?\"
 

This gonna be one of those search thingies I'll never figure out?

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: \"Shnnia?\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
This gonna be one of those search thingies I'll never figure out?

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

shania

here you go buddy

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

You should also remember that just playing tight preflop does not necessarily win you the money. It also requires making good decisions after the flop. In fact since the bets double on the turn and river, I would say at least 50% of your winnings are determined by post flop play.

Please try to learn the whole game.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

i like this Zim guy! good post and enjoyable discussion.

i also like dashes.
-----------------------------------------------
i've heard similar arguments made for just the top 10 hands. if you think that you can only make money against idiots with this type of strategy, i say exactly!! that's who we're talking about here. you would be surprised how many players would never figure it out and continue to reraise you with J9s.

i think you could play only the top 10 hands and always rasie with them regardless of position and show a small profit at low limits.

------------------------------------------------
all of that said, it would not be a maximal strategy.(it might be close to optiaml though.)

if we go any further into strategy we have to discuss LAG vs. TAG. your top 20 played well would be a pretty good TAG strategy. TAG is the easiest way to play well. however, an equally well played LAGish strategy will be more profitable. the catch is playing a good LAG game is very hard, where as a good TAG game isn't to hard to manage.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's rather fun to spot all the bad play. I mean, really bad. Capping the bets preflop with 94o kinda bad.

(he, naturally, flopped a straight)


[/ QUOTE ]

If he flopped a str8 with 94o, it's certainly a bad play. <Sklansky> Do you see why? </Sklansky>

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

The problem with this strategy is that you would be classified as tight by the players at the table, and anytime you got one of your premium hands, the table weould likely not give you any action.

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

Hmm ...

Aside from the obvious (capping with a hand that will return fractions of your original investment, over the long term), I'm not quite sure.

.
.
.

Oh geez, I just noticed it.

Zim hangs his head in shame.

95o

Honest.

Cheers!
 

Man, that's a cool post. Speaks on many levels, huh?

But one flaw:

The great ferret writes:

"All of this is assuming that your opponents are clinically alive and have at least one sensory organ functioning."

This might be granting too much credit to the typical Party low limit player. Actually, I have wandered if the lower levels are made up of bots, for the most part. I've seen some rather peculiar plays ...

Much appreciated. A post I'll revisit often in the future.

Best,
Zim

Re: SSH and Utility: The Case for the Terrible 20
 

"i think you could play only the top 10 hands and always rasie with them regardless of position and show a small profit at low limits."

I remember I had mentioned this way back in the day, but I was directed to NL.

Ed then publishes *my* sacred ultra-tight strategy for the world to see ... but, truth be told, I never found it to be terribly profitable.

Limit is a new arena for me, tho', and I am curious to know if anyone actually has tried ultra-tight at low limits. Perhaps I should experiment tomorrow, just for fun.

But now, off to the Poker room, got SSH in my hand ... and I feel like losing lots of cash check raising the flop on all my draws.

Best,
Zim