Starting Hands

[Festus22]

As I've come to respect the opinion of many here, I'd like your critique on my starting hand rules. Bear in mind that I deviate somewhat based on number of callers, table mood, etc. but overall, I pretty much stick to it. Also, I play in the no foldem realm exclusively $2 or less online. It's been working pretty good with the exception of my prior post regarding semi-big pairs. Is this too loose, tight, or hands in the wrong group? With this, I play about 2 hands/round. Feel free to hack:

Position
1(BB+1): Call Group 3 or better
2: Call Group 3 or better
3: Group 4 or better
4: Group 5 or better
5: Group 5 or better
6: Group 6 or better
7: Group 7 or better
8: Group 7 or better
9 (SB): Group 7 or better
10 (BB): Group 7 or better (2 bets to me)

Call 2 bets
Group Hands <= 5

Call 3, 4 bets
Group Hands <= 3

Raise to 2 bets with Group 1-2, sometimes Group 3 and even Group 4 depending on position and number of callers.

Raise to 3 or 4 bets with Group 1 and AK, AQs and sometimes AJs.

HAND/GROUP
AA: 1
AKs:1
AK: 2
AQs:2
AQ: 3
AJs:2
AJ: 4
A10s:3
A10:4
A9s:4
A9: 6
A8s:4
A8: 7
Axs:5
KK: 1
KQs:2
KQ: 4
KJs:3
KJ: 5
K10s:3
K10:6
K9s:5
K8s:5
Kxs:6
QQ: 1
QJs:3
QJ: 5
Q10s:4
Q10:5
Q9s:5
Q9: 7
Q8s:5
Qxs:7
JJ: 1
J10s:4
J10:5
J9s:5
J9: 7
J8s:6
1010:2
109s:5
108s:6
107s:7
99: 3
98s:5
97s:7
88: 3
87s:6
86s:7
77: 4
76s:6
75s:7
66: 5
65s:7
55: 6
54s:7
44: 7
33: 7
22: 7

[thomastem]

What group are the pocket chickens?

[Dynasty]

I could tell this was a terrible system as soon as I saw the word "group" appear over and over.

For starters, you should be playing any pair in any position for one bet. There are several other mistakes here and they all have to do with playing "groups".

[Festus22]

I've read the group concept in Abdul Jalib's work, of course S&M, Lee Jones, Hellmuth and others. Obviously, the goal is to assign relative strength to a starting hand and combine those of similar value into groups. What makes this method wrong? What other methods of evaluation are there that can give guidelines into what hands to play in what position? I believe having reasonably defined guidelines is critical to consistent play. Just winging it can't be better, can it?

[Joe Tall]

When I first started out I used to look at the game similar to the method you have described. However, now I play completely based on game conditions and opponent actions and involvement.

Example: take a hand like 88, I've 3-bet w/88 in EMP to isolate a Loose Agressive's UTG raise and I've folded it preflop to a Tight strong agressive player who raised in early position, knowing he held JJ+.

The dynamics of the game are too large to just stick to a rigid chart/list of hands by group and position. It is a great way to learn, but keep reading here and you'll find that situational dependant descisions dominate how the game is played.

[Play Tight]

I started a similar thread last week about my particular starting hand requirements. I cannot figure out how to link it to this post but look back for a thread called Starting Hands - What do you think? Its probably about 5 to 7 pages back. This might be to tight for you but works for me.

I received some great advice and some idiotic advice as well. Dynasty replyed there as well with no real advice just a post to rip on my starting hands and also stated there that you must play any pair for 1 bet from any postion. I lost all respect for his criticism based on that comment alone and now I see he has posted it here also. This has to be one of the worst pieces of advice I have ever saw. You do not know from EP or MP if you are playing for 1 bet or not. You should only play low pocket pairs (7's and below) from LP in an unraised pot. Your odds are very low to make a set on the flop and if in EP or LP you cannot bet only call, probably calling dead.

LarryJoeFish offered a great piece of advice as far as playing not only postionally but also based on the style of play on the table in general and based upon who is betting in particular.

Basic idea that alot of players do not ahear to: EP - only the best hands, MP - a few more hands, LP - many hands. But all hands played must be strong and ready to withstand a raise from behind. And the general rule of play is if you miss on the flop, MUCK and forget about it. The next hand will happen in less than a minute or so.

If you see my post mentioned earlier you will notice that I play even tighter then Lee Jones says to. I realize that I could play many more hands but I feel more comfortable in no fold'em hold'em knowing that I'm playing the nuts and not just crossing my fingers and hoping for a magical flop or an amazing suck out. Rememeber the fewer flops you see the less you lose to the rake as well.

Find starting hands that work for you and push them hard but muck when you miss. After you feel more comfortable in your abalities (both in playing certain hands postionally and reading the style of play) you will adjust your game and starting hand requirements. Good luck in finding what works for you.

[Dynasty]

The game Festus22 describes and the one you described (I think) were both low-limit games which can almost always be counted on for being loose-passive. The great advantage a skilled player has in this game is that he is able to play more hands in all positions because the pot will rarely be raised behind you. When it is raised behind you, you can often put that opponent on a very narrow range of premium hands and play accordingly post-flop.

The first hands each of you need to add to your starting hand selection is the pocket pairs. When the flop is routinely being taken by half the table or more, you are giving up way too much EV by folding even 22 UTG. You will flop a set or better once in every 8.5 hands. You will nearly have the proper pot odds to make the call.

However, most beginning players don't learn for quite a while that pot odds have little to do with playing pocket pairs. Pocket pairs are profitable when you have opponents who will pay you off for multiple bets on the post-flop streets. These players are found in abundance in low-limit games. When your 22 makes a set on a flop of J,7,2 rainbow, you are going to get called in lots of places by hands like J9o, 76s, ATo, KQo, 88, and quite a few more who are drawing stone cold dead. They'll even call raises on post-flop streets with all those hands.

I feel more comfortable in no fold'em hold'em knowing that I'm playing the nuts...Rememeber the fewer flops you see the less you lose to the rake as well.

This is an atrocious way to play the game. You rarely need the nuts to win at the showdown. The best players not only play the nuts but also profitably play in marginal situations. In fact, the ultra-tight players I've observed in low-limit games look like they're barely better than break-even. Those who push marginal edges can slaughter the games. In my middle limit games, you've got no chance playing ultra-tight.

As for the rake, you only pay it if you win the pot. So, I'd like to pay as much rake as possible.

LarryJoeFish offered a great piece of advice as far as playing not only postionally but also based on the style of play on the table in general

That's why you play the pocket pairs. The style of the table in almost all low-limit game allow it.

BTW, I know Larry. He's a bit...er..."enthusiastic" about unusual plays like raising with 72o (which he suggested to me). Nice guy, though.

[Festus22]

Thanks for your reply. I did find your post and the starting systems are similar. Being a holdem newbie, I find having a system invaluable. No system is exact and differences of opinion are bound to exist (even Jalib and S&M are still arguing that point) but to play within a repeatable structure I feel is necessary while you develop better player and game reading skills.

And it was good to hear that some of the more experienced players started out this way. You can't learn to run until you learn to walk (crawl in my case?).

Good Luck to you!

[Ed Miller]

Dynasty replyed there as well with no real advice just a post to rip on my starting hands and also stated there that you must play any pair for 1 bet from any postion. I lost all respect for his criticism based on that comment alone and now I see he has posted it here also. This has to be one of the worst pieces of advice I have ever saw. You do not know from EP or MP if you are playing for 1 bet or not. You should only play low pocket pairs (7's and below) from LP in an unraised pot. Your odds are very low to make a set on the flop and if in EP or LP you cannot bet only call, probably calling dead.

Dynasty's advice is almost always good and this was no exception. In a game where players go too far with their hands (i.e. "no foldem" as you guys like to call it) pocket pairs gain tremendous value, as you will gain many bets postflop while your opponents are drawing near dead. Even if you think it is relatively likely that the pot will be raised (once) behind you, I would still play all pairs from up front if I thought that my opponents would give significantly excessive action after the flop.

IMO, you and Festus both should read the starting hand advice in HPFAP. It is quite good and mentions things like playing small pairs from up front in loose games.

[Play Tight]

Major,

As I just wrote to Dynasty in another post everyone is entitled to play as they choose. I will not ever be convinced that a pocket pair with a 4% chance of hitting a set on the flop is a good play. If you miss (which is most of the time,) you have nothing. Especially in a loose game I will dump pocket 7's or less from any postion, becasue when you miss there is almost guranteed to be a bigger pair. 4% = 1 out of 25 = you paying a $3 call ($3/6 game) 24 times before you hit a set on the flop. Thats $72 before you get a set. Most $3/6 pots aren't $72 to begin with. It just doesn't make sense to me.

But as I said to each their own. I will have to respectfully disagree with the low pocket pair thought process.