What Percentage Hands to Play

[asdtexas]

In a typical $10/$20 or $5/$10 game where the players are loose and somewhat passive, what percentage of hands do you play not includoing the mandatory bring in?

thanks

I

[Andy B]

I think I play 20-25% of my hands in loose, passive $3/6 and $6/12 games, but you shouldn't try to skew your results towards some pre-determined percentage. You should evaluate each hand on its own merit, independent of what has happened on other hands. There's a big difference between what you should play for the bring-in only and what you should play for a full bet. I also think that there are some flimsy hands that I can play for a profit that would cost other players money with compounding errors on later streets.

[evenrane]

I would think that in a loose passive game the percentage of hands that I play would go up to about 35%. If they are playing way too many hands then the best way to counteract this, in my opinion, is too play a few more borderline hands that you would not have played in a different game.

[DoctorK]

I disagree that you should loosen up just because your opponents are. If the ante structure favors looser play, then I would agree that in that instance, you should loosen your starting hand requirements accordingly. But just because other players play crappy cards doesn't mean you should.

Having said that, I think I would see 4th street about 20% of the time, and 5th street and beyond significantly less.

Doc.

[7stud]

Suppose the ante was 0, there was no bring in, you never saw any player at the table fold before 7th street, and there was betting on every round. Would you only start with rolled up Aces?

Now, what about the same betting structure in a game where only rocks are at the table, and the winner always shows at least trips? Are your starting hand requirements the same?

Do you want to rethink your position that the betting structure should alone should determine your starting hand requirements and the players at the table don't matter?

[DoctorK]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose the ante was 0, there was no bring in, you never saw any player at the table fold before 7th street, and there was betting on every round. Would you only start with rolled up Aces?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would look for a different table where I could use some poker skills, instead of just playing best-hand showdown.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, what about the same betting structure in a game where only rocks are at the table, and the winner always shows at least trips? Are your starting hand requirements the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't play at that table either.

I've never encountered either of those scenarios, which don't resembly the typical loose-passive games the original poster asked about.

In my experience, and I think MRB backs me up on this, you can win a lot against a loose passive table (like the 3-6 on Party) without loosening your starting hand requirements. You **might** be able to win more by loosening up your starting hands as well, but I don't think any potential increase in EV outweighs the increase in variance you'd be subjecting yourself to.

Please notice that I never said that the players at the table don't matter. Of course they do. At a loose-passive table, I'm sure at least one player is VERY loose, and another is tighter than the rest. How you respond to a 3rd street completion from one of them showing a King would be different from how you respond if the raise came from the other.

But to look at the makeup of a table, and because some of the players play too many hands, automatically decide that you should too is not a strategy I endorse.

Doc.

[mostsmooth]

i would play 100% of the hands i felt were playable
i would play 0% of the hands i felt were unplayable