My holdem starting hand formula
Aaron
formula for both limit and no limit. Can anyone tell me if
it seems reasonably good, or if any part of it seems bad?
First I give the position a rating of 1, 2, or 3. 1 is the
button and blinds, when unraised, and the big blind, when
raised the minimum by the opener, such that the big blind
can end the action by calling. 2 is the two positions
immediately before the button, unraised, or the button,
when raised the minimum amount, or the big blind, when
raised the minimum amount by someone other than the opener.
3 is all other positions and situations.
Then I give the hand a category of 1, 2, or 3. 1 is the
worst, and is any offsuit hand with no ace. 2 is 2nd, and
is any suited hand with no ace or any offsuit hand with an
ace. 3 is the best, and is any suited ace or pair.
For each combination of position (1, 2, or 3) and category
(1, 2, or 3) I require that both cards of the hand be at or
above a certain minimum rank, as follow:
Position Category Minimum Rank
======== ======== ============
1 1 8
1 2 5
1 3 2
2 1 10
2 2 8
2 3 5
3 1 Q
3 2 10
3 3 8
The main reason why I like the above starting hand formula
is that it's easy for me to remember. But does it have any
glaring defects? Is it too loose or too tight? Does it
omit any important hands? Does it allow hands to be played
that shouldn't be?
It omits 54s, but after playing hands like that for a few
years, I've come to the conclusion that it's better to just
always fold them, even in no limit.
The formula gives no points for connectors, because the idea
of ranking the hand by its lower card means if it's not a
connector or has too much gap between the ranks to be good
for straights, then the bigger card of the hand is probably
big enough to make even more difference than the connector
value.
Please reply in rec.gambling.poker only, and not by email,
because email sent to this account is never read.
metallifried
you to remember, go for it.
aaro...@mailandnews.com (Aaron) wrote in message news:<70fa703b.0405...@posting.google.com>...
Howard Beale
second sentence!
Give some examples of hands played in what position
for what number of bets against what type of
opponents and I, for one, could respond. Otherwise
you'll have to hope some puzzle geniuses are
interested.
Howard Beale
"I'm mad as hell (no puzzle genius me, ok I) and I'm not
going to take it anymore!"
* New Poker Magazine:
http://www.liveactionpoker.com/magazine/magazine.html
** Free Daily WSOP Updates at http://www.liveactionpoker.com
Lew Green
your playing A2 or A3 from the button or something... in any event if you
want a "formula" hutchinson's system is much easier to use and remember and
well tested in limit...
i do find it hard to believe the same starting hands should be played in
limit as NL... and I think it also varies tremendously by:
1.Stakes (low or high)
2. Online or Bricks and Mortar
3. Table temperment... maniacs? sharks? Passive? River-chasers? Schooling
Riverchasers (Pacific Poker)
4. and for NL... you assume limit style pre-flop raises... what about
stackoff, half-stack and pot sized raises?... what about raise and a
reraise...what about when the raise comes from UTG or the SB?
5. What about high card value NL trap hands like AJ and KJ and even KQ? The
ones that can really get you in trouble in NL when they become hard to drop?
Larry
> omit any important hands?
A little lose for my liking.
In Limit, assume all players have stack size greater than 30 bets with limit
3 raises and UTG raises, UTG+1 raises, UTG+2 raises, UTG+3 raises, all fold
to me on at button-1, and I call with what?
In NL, assume all players have stack size greater than 5000 and the blinds
are 5 and 5 and UTG raises to 25, UTG+1 makes it 50 to go, UTG+1 makes it
100 to go, UTG+2 makes it 300 to go, UTG+3 makes it 1000 to go, all fold to
me at button-1, and I call with what?
Position 3, Category 1, Min Q = KQo
Position 3, Category 2, Min T = JTs,QTs,QJs,KTs,KQs,KJs
Position 3, Category 3, Min 8 = AKs,AQs,AJs,ATs,A9s,A8s,AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,99,88
I think your formula an excellent idea, but faulters in extreme situations.
Aaron
> i do find it hard to believe the same starting hands should be played in
> limit as NL... and I think it also varies tremendously by:
In no limit you can hit a lucky flop and win many times your money.
But my theory is that you lose more that way than you win, because of
all the times you hit something halfway. Therefore I don't play more
starting hands in no limit than in limit. I know there is a lot of
room for argument about that, but it's the way I do it.
> 1.Stakes (low or high)
Same starting hands. Games vary as different players come and go, but
it's important to have a consistent starting hand formula, because if
you get tilted, the only way to recognize the tilt is by the fact that
you have trouble following your starting hand formula.
> 2. Online or Bricks and Mortar
B&M has been made obsolete by modern technology.
> 3. Table temperment... maniacs? sharks? Passive? River-chasers? Schooling
> Riverchasers (Pacific Poker)
It changes constantly. The starting hand formula has to be consistent
to help prevent tilt.
> 4. and for NL... you assume limit style pre-flop raises... what about
> stackoff, half-stack and pot sized raises?... what about raise and a
> reraise...what about when the raise comes from UTG or the SB?
I divide the raises into 3 categories. First, the minimum raise,
which happens frequently, even in no limit. Second, something
slightly bigger, but no more that would be allowed the opener in pot
limit. Third, anything bigger than that. But, in most cases, my
starting hand formula requires the strongest category of starting
hands for any raise above the minimum. That makes it simple, with no
need to calculate the raises etc.
Of course, just because you have a starting hand formula, doesn't mean
you have to play all hands that qualify. Poker always requires
judgement. The only purpose of the starting hand formula is to
prevent tilt. If you become tilted, and aren't aware of it, the
starting hand formula can help keep you out of trouble long enough for
you to recover from the tilt. But good judgement can make a big
difference in how much you win, and that includes folding a lot of
hands that otherwise meet your requirements.
> 5. What about high card value NL trap hands like AJ and KJ and even KQ? The
> ones that can really get you in trouble in NL when they become hard to drop?
When faced with a big raise preflop, a starting hand formula is
useless. You have to know the player and use your judgement. But
whatever hand you do play in that situation, it should at least meet
the requirements of the starting hand formula.
Also there are some rare no limit situations where you want to play
trash. To keep that from becoming a problem, I simply record the
number of times I play hands that don't meet my requirements, and
consider myself tilted if it exceeds a certain number.
Aaron
> In Limit, assume all players have stack size greater than 30 bets with limit
> 3 raises and UTG raises, UTG+1 raises, UTG+2 raises, UTG+3 raises, all fold
> to me on at button-1, and I call with what?
Those raises require the strongest starting hands in the formula.
Deciding what hands to play, you always use your judgement of the
situation. The starting hand formula is just a sanity check, to make
sure your judgement is in the right ballpark. Anytime you play a hand
that doesn't meet the requirements, you have to ask yourself if there
was really a good reason for that, or if it was because of tilt.
Note that the position number in the formula depends not only on being
on the button but also on the raises.
> In NL, assume all players have stack size greater than 5000 and the blinds
> are 5 and 5 and UTG raises to 25, UTG+1 makes it 50 to go, UTG+1 makes it
> 100 to go, UTG+2 makes it 300 to go, UTG+3 makes it 1000 to go, all fold to
> me at button-1, and I call with what?
>
> Position 3, Category 1, Min Q = KQo
> Position 3, Category 2, Min T = JTs,QTs,QJs,KTs,KQs,KJs
> Position 3, Category 3, Min 8 = AKs,AQs,AJs,ATs,A9s,A8s,AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,99,88
>
> I think your formula an excellent idea, but faulters in extreme situations.
Extreme situations always require good judgement. No starting hand
formula can cover them. It's just to help recognize tilt. If you
find yourself playing hand after hand without meeting the starting
hand requirement, you know you're severely tilted.
Aaron
> Easy to remember? I was mixed-up half-way thru the
> second sentence!
Easy to remember vs easy to explain. Two different things. This
particular formula is extremely easy for me to remember. Each player
should devise their own starting hand formula based partly on how
easily they can remember it.
> Give some examples of hands played in what position
> for what number of bets against what type of
> opponents and I, for one, could respond. Otherwise
> you'll have to hope some puzzle geniuses are
> interested.
E.g. if you open UTG with KJo in a 10-player game, the starting hand
formula disagrees, which indicates that you might be tilted.
A raise and reraise, or any raise above the minimum, makes the button
equivalent to UTG as far as the starting hand formula is concerned.
After a certain level, you can only use judgement, not a formula. The
formula is to cover ordinary situations, such as whether to open or
fold, whether to call in a certain position when raised the minimum,
etc.
The UTG hands in the formula are KQo, ace with kicker 10 or higher,
suited cards both 10 or higher, suited ace with kicker 8 or higher,
and pair of 8's or higher.
Also, by the way, the percentages are 11.3 22.6 42.1 (percentage of
hands that meet the requirements for each of the three position
numbers.) Note that the 42.1% hands are only for button calls,
completing the small blind, and calling a minimum raise for half price
from the big blind when it will end the preflop action. And in games
where the small blind is less than half the big blind, e.g. blinds are
10/25 or whatever, I don't even include completing the small blind as
a 42.1% hand.
It's debatable whether there would be much advantage of waiting for
better hands than these UTG. I used a formula in the past where I
only played 5.3% UTG instead of 11.3%, and seemed to do ok that way.
But I seem to do ok this way too. (The 5.3% were AK, AQs-ATs, KQs,
QJs, JTs, AA-TT)
Bill Reich
aaro...@mailandnews.com (Aaron) wrote:
>Howard Beale <howar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<40b233ee$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net>...
>> Easy to remember? I was mixed-up half-way thru the
>> second sentence!
>
>Easy to remember vs easy to explain. Two different things. This
>particular formula is extremely easy for me to remember. Each player
>should devise their own starting hand formula based partly on how
>easily they can remember it.
>
>> Give some examples of hands played in what position
>> for what number of bets against what type of
>> opponents and I, for one, could respond. Otherwise
>> you'll have to hope some puzzle geniuses are
>> interested.
>
>E.g. if you open UTG with KJo in a 10-player game, the starting hand
>formula disagrees, which indicates that you might be tilted.
If you open-limp in that situtation with KJo, you don't need a starting hand
formula to know that the hand is too likely to be dominated, not strong enough
in general and kinda hard to play profitably even if you DO end up with only
one or two opponents.
If you open with a steal-raise once in a hundred years, you don't need a
starting hand formula to know that you are making a minus-EV play for the
purpose of stirring the pot, maybe losing a bit of that image that is keeping
people from paying you off.
>
>A raise and reraise, or any raise above the minimum, makes the button
>equivalent to UTG as far as the starting hand formula is concerned.
>After a certain level, you can only use judgement, not a formula. The
>formula is to cover ordinary situations, such as whether to open or
>fold, whether to call in a certain position when raised the minimum,
>etc.
For none of which you need a formula. However, if you're more comfortable
with a formula, the ideas you have proposed won't hurt you either.
>
>The UTG hands in the formula are KQo, ace with kicker 10 or higher,
>suited cards both 10 or higher, suited ace with kicker 8 or higher,
>and pair of 8's or higher.
This is not too much different from Abdul-Jalib's thinking for a full table.
I think that he advises playing Sevens. He is not as fond of AXs but he is
talking about a tighter table with fewer multi-way hands. Your formula and
the way I play at loose tables is pretty similar. Except I don't play KQo
much of the time. I might open for a raise with KQs but that is a variance
play.
>
>Also, by the way, the percentages are 11.3 22.6 42.1 (percentage of
>hands that meet the requirements for each of the three position
>numbers.) Note that the 42.1% hands are only for button calls,
>completing the small blind, and calling a minimum raise for half price
>from the big blind when it will end the preflop action. And in games
>where the small blind is less than half the big blind, e.g. blinds are
>10/25 or whatever, I don't even include completing the small blind as
>a 42.1% hand.
>
>It's debatable whether there would be much advantage of waiting for
>better hands than these UTG. I used a formula in the past where I
>only played 5.3% UTG instead of 11.3%, and seemed to do ok that way.
>But I seem to do ok this way too. (The 5.3% were AK, AQs-ATs, KQs,
>QJs, JTs, AA-TT)
If you only play those hands UTG at a loose table, observant players won't
give you any action. However, there won't BE many observant players at a
loose table and playing only that range of starting hands can be very restful
and somewhat profitable.
Will in New Haven
--
This hand will raise now.
There is no I to do it;
The cards themselves act.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Bill Reich
aaro...@mailandnews.com (Aaron) wrote:
>"Lew Green" <lewg...@earthnospamlink.net> wrote in message news:<4hssc.7445$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>> i do find it hard to believe the same starting hands should be played
in
>> limit as NL... and I think it also varies tremendously by:
>
>In no limit you can hit a lucky flop and win many times your money.
>But my theory is that you lose more that way than you win, because of
>all the times you hit something halfway. Therefore I don't play more
>starting hands in no limit than in limit. I know there is a lot of
>room for argument about that, but it's the way I do it.
>
>> 1.Stakes (low or high)
>
>Same starting hands. Games vary as different players come and go, but
>it's important to have a consistent starting hand formula, because if
>you get tilted, the only way to recognize the tilt is by the fact that
>you have trouble following your starting hand formula.
You cannot ignore the need to adjust for the table. And it isn't the stakes
that matter it is the characteristics of the table. Against players looser
than optimum, there are whole ACRES of connectors and suited Aces that must
be added to ones arsenal if maximum profit is to be achieved. Against players
tighter than optimum, raising to steal the blinds becomes more and more important.
Against optimally tight players, leaving is the first option. Playing the
straight starting hand chart of your choice (mine is in my head, not a formula)
is the second option. If they are playing optimal pre-flop about the only
reason to hang around is if they, or some of them, suck post-flop.
>
>> 2. Online or Bricks and Mortar
>
>B&M has been made obsolete by modern technology.
So you miss the opportunity to make money by reading people. What a sad,
limited idea of poker. There is nothing more exciting than a NLHE tournament
at a casino. Of course, that is the best +EV I have so I WOULD be prejudiced.
>> 3. Table temperment... maniacs? sharks? Passive? River-chasers? Schooling
>> Riverchasers (Pacific Poker)
>
>It changes constantly. The starting hand formula has to be consistent
>to help prevent tilt.
Tilt should be a minor issue. There is no reason to mind if someone wins
a hand that he "shouldnn't." Playing good starting hands against people playing
random crap is like owning a slot machine. If the suckers never won a hand,
even THEY would stop playing. If tilt is a major issue, there are better
ways to deal with it than starting hand tables or formulae.
>
>> 4. and for NL... you assume limit style pre-flop raises... what about
>> stackoff, half-stack and pot sized raises?... what about raise and a
>> reraise...what about when the raise comes from UTG or the SB?
>
>I divide the raises into 3 categories. First, the minimum raise,
>which happens frequently, even in no limit.
If it happens "frequently," you are playing in weak games. The minimum raise
is not a good tactic for the most part.
>Second, something
>slightly bigger, but no more that would be allowed the opener in pot
>limit.
That is the normal NL raise, now sometimes being replaced by even bigger
raises in some games and by min-raises in others. You need a better hand
to call than to raise and your options should always be fold..re-raise..call.
And this is MUCH easier if you can see the guy when he raises.
Third, anything bigger than that. But, in most cases, my
>starting hand formula requires the strongest category of starting
>hands for any raise above the minimum. That makes it simple, with no
>need to calculate the raises etc.
>
>Of course, just because you have a starting hand formula, doesn't mean
>you have to play all hands that qualify. Poker always requires
>judgement. The only purpose of the starting hand formula is to
>prevent tilt. If you become tilted, and aren't aware of it, the
>starting hand formula can help keep you out of trouble long enough for
>you to recover from the tilt. But good judgement can make a big
>difference in how much you win, and that includes folding a lot of
>hands that otherwise meet your requirements.
>
>> 5. What about high card value NL trap hands like AJ and KJ and even KQ?
The
>> ones that can really get you in trouble in NL when they become hard to
drop?
>
>When faced with a big raise preflop, a starting hand formula is
>useless. You have to know the player and use your judgement. But
>whatever hand you do play in that situation, it should at least meet
>the requirements of the starting hand formula.
Depends on the player and the situtation. There are times when a weak hand
can and probabaly should re-raise. In order to call, you would need at least
a hand good enough to play in the first place? No, you need a hand better
than that by a great deal.
>Also there are some rare no limit situations where you want to play
>trash. To keep that from becoming a problem, I simply record the
>number of times I play hands that don't meet my requirements, and
>consider myself tilted if it exceeds a certain number.
Maybe your definition of "tilt" is different from mine. Your starting hand
requirements, formula or no formula, are perfectly reasonable, however.