Hand Strength Tables

[Student]

A contributor to 2 + 2 presented a table of hand strengths of the 2 hole cards for Hold'em some time ago, which has intrigued me ever since. This table showed hand strength for pairs, suited combinations and unsuited combinations, for all 169 possibilities. It was done for 2 players (heads-up), 3, 4, etc thru 9 competitors.

For example, it showed that hole cards of AA were "worth" 3.10 against 7 opponents. My understanding is that random hands would have been given to each of the 7 opponents, and then the board would also be 5 random cards. The result of a Monte Carlo computation would be 3.1 for AA, I expect. Although I know how to program this problem using computer software, I'm reluctant to do this work, given that somewhere out there exists the solution.

I've tried Poker Stove, and frankly I don't know how to harness this tool for this computation. So if you are one who could employ PokerStove 1.2 to do this, please tell me how to do it!

Alternately, if this table is published somewhere as part of the literature of poker, tell me where please! Finally, if there is free software that does this, I'd be very interested. The version of the table I have has 2 significant places for most hole card combinations (such as 0.89 for 97unsuited, and I'd prefer 3 places of accuracy. Furthermore, I'd like to see how such a table is generated.

This is such a basic foundational table that I suspect everyone owns this table, except me! Certainly every 2+2er should have it...

Dave

[illunious]

link

[Twitch1977]

I strongly feel that you are overrating the value of such a table.

The strength of a hand simply changes too much based upon the action before you pre-flop to encapsulate it into one all encompassing table.

For instance, if you're on the button with 65s the strength of that hand can vary greatly. For instance if 6 people have already limped in it's a great hand, but if a tight straightforward player raised UTG and it's folded to you that 65s isn't worth much.

So in short my point is if you want to learn the strenght of starting hands you're better off spending your time learning why certain hands are strong in one situation but weak in other situations. Learn which hands play better short handed, which hands play well into limped pots, etc. I personally don't see any value in trying to create a chart.

But with that said if the link provided by the other contributer isn't the chart you want, drop me a mail thing and I'll help you figure out exactly how to do this in poker stove.

T

[Student]

I'm starting to realize the value of your observation! Situational factors are of tremendous importance. I wrote a detailed answer to the other post to this thread, as I'm most grateful for that table too. But somehow it didn't get posted. I'm sure I forgot to hit the submit button, after I'd edited the note, or something.

I actually am a beginner at poker. But I'm also the inventor of many mathematical constructs, including some useful ones. So my approach to poker will naturally be colored by who I am (math inventor), rather than what is most valid concerning poker.

As it happens I've come up with many conclusions, based on my table of hand strengths, and some of these conclusions are unique enough as to be interesting. I'm sure I'm backing into poker from a totally different direction than most take, and I'm equally sure the direction I've chosen is quite a silly one, if only I could find a properly qualified judge!

Just to show how silly my approach is, realize I've yet to read a single entire book about poker that is useful! I don't want to mention names, but the two I've read are not the usual ones; 'nuf said! Yet I've bought about 30 poker books so far, and I lack only a few important ones. Thankfully, I'm most of the way thru GSiH (Getting Started in Hold'em), and that is one very useful book for one such as me!

This afternoon, after not playing poker on PokerStars (or anywhere else, for that matter) for one month plus one week, I resolved to correct that mistake. Why study, study, and study poker, and not play at all? Eh, why? But that too is a measure of my silliness...

How did I do? I won 43 cents on PokerStars playing 1/2 cents NL HE. I was partly influenced by Miller's GSiH. Funny thing about 1/2 cents NL HE is the minimum starting bankroll is $1.00, which is 50 Large Blinds. So I was in violation of GSiH right from the start, at least relating to the Short Stack Strategy. Forgive me, Ed! I played 9 hands and won 3 of them (the big one was a tie, where I went in on the basis of top pair of KK on the flop, and the other fellow went all in because he flopped a straight with his J9 unsuited. I had KJ unsuited, and only went all in when I flopped the KK. Then Ace came on the river, and his straight improved and I had one. Lucky me!!!

So I flounder along, trying to learn poker at the ripe old age of 67 years. But it has been fun.

Dave

[Pov]

Glad to see you're coming around, Dave. It's a great game. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[kiddj]

I am still waiting for my copy of HEFAP (best 2000 FPP ever spent!), so I have no literature on blind steal/defense. Does the chart linked above have any value in this area?

The hand listing is assuming random opponents' cards right? So, if you are on the button and are 1st to act, (gotta love Poker Stars), you should be raising with any hand that shows at least 33% against 2 opponents from the chart?

I know other factors need to be considered, but does this seem to be a valid starting point or supplement to "what the book" says?

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Thankfully, I'm most of the way thru GSiH (Getting Started in Hold'em), and that is one very useful book for one such as me!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I just bought it as an impulse buy, mostly for the NLHE content. Just the small stack/large stack discussion, and the simple point about the whole purpose being to get called by inferior hands (which is really obvious when you think about it), are worth the price.

I can see how that book would be right up your alley. Ed is writing for beginners, but there's still a ton of "meat" for 200 pages.

[Student]

Appreciate it very much, and your help along the way!

The plan I had originally, namely to read, then play, then read, etc has a basic flaw. Miller asserts both in SSH and then again in GSiH that experienced players often have terrible flaws built right into their perception of the fundamentals of poker. They came by these bad habits honestly.

I was talking with Joe at Sandia Casino. He'd placed second in the NL HE held at Isletta the Sunday before, an event limited to 51 players (because that's how many chairs they own), and costing $5. He'd won $156, and was quite enthusiastic! I asked what books he'd read, and he said "none." He is proud of the fact that he's picked up all he knows without any books. I'd be the first to acknowledge that his was quite an accomplishment, and it was a tribute to his basic intelligence! But Joe doesn't know that he doesn't know, and he's not going to find out, either. He's mastered playing with the flawed players to be found at this B&M, and has adjusted to the exact set of flaws they have. Joe won't be playing in the World Series of Poker, not because he's not smart enough and not working hard enough, but because he's picked up some very bad habits.

These are habits eliminated only with difficulty, and unfortunately the only rational way to do this is to read. Of course, we are very lucky to have 2+2, and lucky we are constantly refocused back towards the latest in poker understanding, as documented by recent books.

Joe knows that poker is a lifetime process of learning more and more, but he doesn't play on the internet (hence, he lacks a standard of comparison for his true level of playing) and 30 years from now he'll not be much further along the path to poker understanding, unless he does something dramatic in the way of change!

Because of my trajectory, there was far too much emphasis on play. I didn't have the fundamentals of poker established at the theoretic level (done from a nearly 100% diet of reading), so my extensive play was actually leading me down the same path Joe took, a path including some basic misconceptions of poker fundamentals. So I stopped playing for a month + a week, and I concentrated on reading GSiH.

Why does it take me so long to read such a small book? Because I need to UNDERSTAND the fundamentals, and a cursory reading I know to be insufficient for my intended purpose. In math, the Newton-Raptson (sp?) method of homing in on solutions requires that your guess of an answer is on the correct side of a maximum. If it isn't, then one will find an alternate and useless solution, a relative maximum that isn't an absolute one. I could have read GSiH in a day, like others have done. It's actually not all that hard a read! But I must understand and assemble a large puzzle, with many pieces. All the pieces must fit. The resulting model can be simplistic, and I'm sure GSiH isn't the 100% A thru Z total solution, but the model must be a proper starting place upon which one can build. If one hasn't found such a proper starting place with their trajectory, they must take 2 steps back and observe and think. Then they can do what I'm attempting to do.

When I capriciously set out to play yesterday I feared that I'd gone too far to the other side, and that I'd be reluctant to play at all, ever! So I threw caution to the winds, and played. Happily I won, but that was an accident. I have so very much to do to take to heart the lessons of GSiH.

Thankfully, due to the help of another contributor to this thread, I now know how to use Poker Stove to do calculations I hope to do. Being a very conservative engineer, I prefer to test everything. Yet, being 67 years old, I don't have time to build software to do what Poker Stove does, to do what Poker Tracker does etc etc. I know how to do these things, but I must master poker enough to accomplish my ultimate goals, which include playing NL HE tournaments, even some of the big ones!

Thanks again!

Dave

[kiddj]

[ QUOTE ]
So I threw caution to the winds, and played. Happily I won, but that was an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
This defines my first "real" poker playing experience exactly!!! I thought I was being seated at a low limit hold'em table at the local casino, but it was a one table tournament instead. I gave it a shot, (mainly because I didn't want to look like an idiot), and I won. The only reasons I won were: 1. I could read the board and tell if I had the nut hand, and 2. I got several of these hands.

So that's how I got hooked and realized that I didn't really know what I was doing at the same time. It's all been uphill from there, give or take a few 100BB slides. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Student]

Good for you! It builds character, doesn't it?

Dave