[12AX7]

Yes, but do these charts not represent actual play?

That means that the human component is involved here. And further the human component of all players at that site.

Why's that significant?

Well, we all know 72o is the worst hand. But your chart shows 32o as the worst EV.

Point is, some hands that have a mathematically lower EV may have a "practical" EV that's better because people play they better. 72o is a perfect example. Since it's commonly know to be the worst hand, folks don't misplay it too often.

All of which points up an interesting idea. I'll steal a phrase from the Blackjack folks, and further mis-use it. LOL!


"Playing Efficiency" (of a hand). How easy is it to tell what to do with it after the flop, is how I'll use the term in this context.

AT seems to be a hand with poor playing efficiency by this definition. You hit the A, and your kicker is poor. Hit your T and it's vulnerable to lots of overcards. So no matter what happens, (short of hitting two pair or better) you have a dilemma. One that's tough to resolve, even if you are a decent hand reader.

So it seems one study that would be of value, especially for multi-tablers, is "Which hands have clear lines of play post flop, and what are those lines of play".

It seems clear to me, especially after having tried playing as many as 8 tables at a time (on a single laptop screen no less) that choosing hands that have easy "yes/no" decision points could be a useful concept.

I for one would very much like to develop a mechanical strategy that could simply be replicated with as much "playing efficiency" as possible to as many tables as I can stand to grind. I.e. to become a human slot machine.

Ideally they strategy would minimize drawdowns as well.

Not sure how to approach building such a strategy though.

Much like the poster quoted in the Forward to this month's magazine, I don't want to play cards per se. I want to make money. The last thing I want to do is "play cards".

Therefore, playing efficiency improvements and drawdown reduction are of clear interest. We want a methodology that that reduces mistakes, reduceds drawdown, and ensures profit.

As a side thought, that seems to be what things like Kill Phil and DS's tournament strategy for beginners are about right? So now we need the same for ring games and other work a day grinders (or wannbes like me). It would also seem the EM's Short Stack NL strategy has a similar idea at it's heart.