[Student]

It would be presumptious of me to say I actually understand the full implications of what you've said, but thanks for saying it nonetheless!

When I compared Ed Miller's opening hand table for playing limit hold'em tightly to my own, I found it remarkable that he gave such credit to pairs of wheel cards. So his opening hand set differed from mine. This told me that he was considering something other than hand strengths, in defining his set of opening hands. I believe you were saying a set of opening hands can't be based entirely on just hand strength.

I THINK I know why Miller includes all the pairs, even 22, in his opening hands set. If one has a pair in the hole, one can slow-play it even to the river, waiting to complete a set such as 222. As long as you're getting free cards anyway, what's the harm? Then, when one has a "set," there is an excellent probability that this will be the winning hand, and it will be a sleeper! Thus it's likely, even though you don't start throwing the chips into the pot in a big way until the river, that the pot will be very rewarding. Rewarding enough that it's justified to put 66 ahead of 87suited, just because of "set" possibilities of hole pairs.

Similarly, other opening hands, ones that a particular player has excellent facility with, and consequently trust with, can be placed into his personal set of opening hands. That's situational, and he's earned the power concerning this strange opening hand!

Of course all of this comes about because hand strength is computed in the absence of any player decisions. This isn't the way the real world of poker is done! Good play can propel even poor hands into winning success. So if a player has unusually good success with cards no one else has success with, why deny membership of these cards in his opening hands set? Doyle's T2 is an example of a special hand, albeit only when played by a special hand (Doyle)!

Dave