Hand Strength Tables

[PuckNPoker]

Here is the EV table for each hand from pokerroom.com:
https://www.pokerroom.com/games/evst...php?players=10

[Student]

This is a very interesting chart you've brought forward, and Thanks!

It shows what certain hole cards are "worth," from an expectancy value point of view, depending on position. One can change the number at the end of the linkage you supplied, and display the effects of position on certain hole cards based on tables with 9, 8, ..., 2 players at the table.

What is especially useful relates to hole cards that are usually not recommended for play in early position (such as 87suited), and can be recommended in certain opening hand tables in late position. This table from Poker Room shows mathematical basis for that kind of recommendation.

I'd appreciate any comments you have about the tables you've added to this thread! Eh? TIA!!!

Dave

[Pov]

Use this link and you will have some additional options and won't have to manually change the number in the URL.

Also, note that these are NOT theoretical values, these are actual number accumulated by PokerRoom for their real money players over the last 994 million hands or something like that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] What's interesting about that is obviously some of the players are very good and some of the players are very bad and there is no real way (from the tools they provide) to separate out what affect that has on the numbers. But you can certainly see some interesting things.

[Student]

Thanks for this more generalized version!

Yes, I did see some of the effects on the table of drawing from a limited sampling.

The more important consideration is the one you mentioned: when results are based on a decision process, especially one where thousands of contributors each have their own view of how to play poker, it would require an adjustment to adapt the table to oneself, or else to come up with even what the average player might expect. That's because results might be expected to be skewed towards the profile of players obtained at Poker Room, rather than the poker world at large.

Even at that some important deductions are worthwhile. However, as primitive as my poker game is, with so very much to learn, by necessity my immediate priorities must orient towards at least deciding on exactly how to implement the Short Stack Strategy, so I can start playing poker again. But I appreciate this linkage as one of the pieces of the puzzle, one I expect to place properly soon enough. By the way, I'd already included the linkage to the 10-player case in my "Favorites," but the improved linkage is certainly an improvement! Thanks again!

Dave

[Twitch1977]

Since there are far more bad players then there are good I think that seriously brings question to some of the numbers in that chart and I would not use it for anything more then a rough idea of how things play.

If you were able to somehow extract just the 'good' players EV's for hands I think the chart would look quite different in some parts. Especially in the play of speculative hands.

T

[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

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Generally speaking, you're correct. Just to pick nits, please keep in mind that you need 22:1 odds each to see the turn and river. Of course the scenario that you give where it's checked to you is fine; you're getting infinite odds. But please don't get in the habit of calling flop bets with tiny pairs!

And also, "slowplay" doesn't apply when you've got a remote draw and it's checked through; a slowplay would be when you hit your set on the flop and check or call (which might be appropriate, particularly if it's top set and the flop isn't very coordinated).

As luck would have it I'm working on the small pairs article: http://poker.wikicities.com/index.ph...lop:Small_pair . (Yeah, it looks like I set this up, but I didn't, I swear!) As always critiques and edits are most welcome.

[bholdr]

Student, let me just say that I can't wait to watch your development as a player- your mathmaticaly intense approach should yeild some intresting results.

you may want to purchase a copy of the wilson 'turbo texas hold 'em' software if you haven't already- it is capable of running the kinds of simulations that you seem to be after, and has been regarded as the best computer ring game hold 'em simulator for a while.

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm also the inventor of many mathematical constructs, including some useful ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
you're a mathmatician, but you talk like an engineer! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

GL in your endevours- you may also want to take a look at stud games- there is far less good data and info available for stud, but it's a more mathematicly oriented game than hold 'em (especially stud/8), though it's also far more complicated.

[Student]

As you know, I'm doing whatever play I do at a NL HE 1/2 cents table. Some time ago I wrote describing how I measure looseness of a table, based on average percentage of players who participate in a pot, a statistic PokerStars publishes. I don't play at a table unless it seems to be loose.

It happens I won't be at the 1/2 cents table long, since the SSS (Short Stack Strategy) of Ed Miller would define a stack to be short if it was 25 or less BBs. Unfortunately the minimum opening bankroll of this PokerStars table is $1.00 (50 BBs). But I expect somewhat similar table looseness at the PokerStars 5/10 cents table, where one can get in for 20 BBs.

So I'm sitting in early position, and my hole cards are 22. I bet 1 BB. I have an actual hand, not a speculative one, such as 78suited. Hence I have pot equity. My hand is truly above average, though not by much. Now, what's done is done, and I hope I'll still be in to see the flop. A raise to 5 BBs happens on the button, and I fold. Fine, I've just gone and blown 1 BB. Miller says I can go broke throwing away 1 BB at a time, and I agree. I had my hand, it had real value and I was protecting it (in a manner of speaking), and now I've kissed off on my hand.

Let's say, instead a raise happens to the level of 2 BBs, and betting comes around to me. There are 7 limpers in there, and one raise, so I swoop on up to 2 BBs with my 22. There are 10 BBs in the pot now, and my (soon to be) set of 222 is beginning to shape up to be a real nice pot! I'm in for the pot, and by the time the preflop round of betting ends there are 5 folks left in the pot, typical of this very loose table. Another Miller rule is "Save pots, not bets!", or something similar. It means big pots are worth reaching for, even if you have to make rediculous bets to reach for them.

I fail to get a 2 on the flop, and instead see a rainbow of AKT. With 4 opponents, I'm sure beat, but let's see what happens. One guy goes to 3 BBs total, and everybody stays in, including me. I have pot equity, and I get to see the turn cheap. The turn is 8, and no one bets. I'm not so sure I'm beat now, and I check.

The river is 2, and I complete my set. I bet all-in, and find only one person calling me. Sure enough, my 222 beats AA, and I take down a really big pot.

Make no mistake, this isn't SSS; not even close! It happens I had 3 BBs in there after the turn, and it's a drawing hand for me now (though with only 2 outs)!

My variation disguises my basic SSS, and I like that! Furthermore, it changes my stats, so I look more like a loose player than what I really am (JMHO - isn't rationalization wonderful!).

That's what I expect, using pairs of wheel cards to justify working the SSS. I realize it's an extension of the idea, but I seem to recall Miller expects one should expect to move from kind of breaking even with SSS in low-stake games in a month, and then with work and study and 3 more months, to be making decent money. I suspect the direction I'm entertaining (and realize I haven't even incorporated SSS into my play yet) is what Miller expects a person to do with SSS.

Dave

PS: Pot odds, or implied odds, aren't important to NL HE, even though actually very important to limit HE. Then, since I limit to NL HE (my personal form of limited unlimited Texas Hold'em, eh?), I get to jump my bet up to all-in, once I complete my 222 set. Limited HE and NL HE are as unlike as night in day, in some important respects!

PPS: I wish you all the finest, concerning your proposed article relating to pairs! Since I'm a beginner, I doubt if what I've said above will help you in any way, but I give you permission to use what I've said, even if you choose to establish it as a horrible example!

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
It means big pots are worth reaching for, even if you have to make ridiculous bets to reach for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, to a point. First of all keep in mind that Miller really emphasizes that point about pot size in the limit chapter of GSIHE*. In limit you often find yourself making a "crying call" on the river getting 15:1 odds or some such, because you believe there's maybe a 10% chance your opponent doesn't have the hand she's representing. So yes, in that case you do want to make some fairly "ridiculous" looking calls.

No limit is much different because first of all, anyone who bets 1/15 of the pot on the river is just playing bizarre poker. Secondly, trying to apply this concept to loose flop calls is dubious because there are still two more rounds of betting left, so you're going to have to call three bets to get to a showdown. And of course, in NLHE the bets could be very expensive, certainly not enough to give you odds like 15:1.

One thing you've clearly got down pat is the implied odds. Yes, when think about sets, you want to be thinking about implied odds because your assumption is that your opponent will be unlikely to put you on that hand. However, keep in mind what Miller says in his small stack/large stack introduction. Implied odds are not very important in small-stack NLHE because the amount you can win is limited by your stack anyway. You can't win 100 BBlind if you hit your set, so you don't have astronomical implied odds. You don't even have implied odds to call 3 BBl with a chance to win 22 on a 22:1 longshot.

I can't tell if the following is a typo or if you actually have these concepts reversed:

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Pot odds, or implied odds, aren't important to NL HE, even though actually very important to limit HE. Then, since I limit to NL HE (my personal form of limited unlimited Texas Hold'em, eh?), I get to jump my bet up to all-in, once I complete my 222 set.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're very much describing implied odds, and they are certainly important to large stack NLHE. They're much less important, although still worth considering, in LHE or in SSNLHE.

As a general rule, you probably shouldn't play small pairs in NLHE unless you're in good position or the game is VERY passive. I've done it too much as I'm learning NL, and Ed's book is a good reminder that I need to play small stacks and sit waiting for great hands rather than try for a huge payday with baby pairs.

[ QUOTE ]
PPS: I wish you all the finest, concerning your proposed article relating to pairs! Since I'm a beginner, I doubt if what I've said above will help you in any way, but I give you permission to use what I've said, even if you choose to establish it as a horrible example!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. The one there right now is for limit (I forgot you're a NL player) but feel free to add a NLHE one, or I can copy your writing up there, as you wish.

*I just acquired it this past week, actually.