Re: What hands should be long term winners?
[ QUOTE ]
certain hands you will only play in certain situations, like 87s. I'm wondering what hands should be long term winners, not just winners when you play them.
M
[/ QUOTE ]
Shoot me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like a perspective of someone who's coming from the blackjack side of the house. In BJ, it's totally documentable how any intelligent player will do over the long run with 99, 65, 9T, etc.
Assuming a randomized deck, there really aren't any "situations" to speak of. And you're playing these hands every time.
A great deal of what makes poker interesting is that the game is chock full of "situations." Take those away, and you're left with something as banal as video poker or Caribbean stud.
If you really want to belabor the point, yes AA should be an overall winner under just about any conceivable circumstance, and 27o's reputation is not so good. But you already know that.
Trying to be more precise -- say, contending that KJs is an overall winner and KJo is not -- strikes me as missing all of the more interesting stuff about position, table texture, number of people seated, people already in the hand, stack size, betting structure (NL, limit, PL, hi blinds/lo blinds, antes, early/late stage of a tournament, etc.) etc.
|