Some hands must be always be losers

[Benman]

If I notice that you only play AA, KK, and QQ, then in the long-run won't KK and QQ be losers for you?

Put another way, faced with observant opponents won't the bottom range of our playable hands, however tight that range is, always be losers?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Not losers, since you pick up the blinds.

[nuclear500]

Define losers?

The chance of being dealt one of those big pocket pairs is very small. AA, KK and QQ are the top 3 premium (if you don't count AK which some put a little above QQ) which means that someone HAS to have one of those 2 hands to beat your QQ, or they are drawing to either 3 outs, or 6 outs (not counting of course all the other possible straight and flush combinations, trips etc).

Losers in the long run? Only if everyone else only will play AA and KK vs you, and that is very doubtful due to the possibility of being dealt them.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but thats how I view it.

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
If I notice that you only play AA, KK, and QQ, then in the long-run won't KK and QQ be losers for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those hands won't be losers, but if you are only playing against players who are 100% sure that you are always only playing those hands and the aforementioned players effectively adjust their strategy, you will probably be an overall loser unless you improve your strategy or table selection.

[JohnnyHumongous]

No, AA, KK and QQ will not be losers for you. However, J2, Q6, A8 and every other hand you fold in the blinds will be a loser. You will lose approx. 0.75BB per round in the blinds and the money you make from those 3 hands will not be enough to match this deficit. Even if your opponents are 100% unobservant and give you full action on these 3 hands, you will still be a net loser because you're paying the blinds.