View Single Post
  #1  
Old 12-03-2005, 07:30 PM
Zim Zim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 40
Default 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
Reply With Quote