[1MoreFish4U]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that it will help most bad or mediocre players stay that way.

[/ QUOTE ]How will it do that?
We both know that in LO8 if you play a hand without an ace, you are starting off in less than ideal shape. This article certainly illustrates that well. Most players can find that info in various places. The players who already (try to) follow starting hand guidelines of some sort would be reassured by this article. Some who were playing very tight may add some hands. Some who 'follow guidelines' but don't think much for themselves will be less likely to protect their blinds with so-so holdings.

[ QUOTE ]
There are no secrets disclosed in it.

[/ QUOTE ]No. But I believe it has fundamental background material for improving one's game. For example, pairs (except for aces and kings) are not included in the top forty two-card combinations found in winning hands. In the starting hand analyzer section, I sorted by win rate (given as a percentage) rather than by $ net per hand) but if sorted by $ net per hand and presented the data that way, no pairs (except aces and kings) are found in the top 40/169 two-card combos found in winning hands either.

I presented Painless Potter data. (Painless Potter is a special no bet, no fold Wilson character used in running no-fold-'em simulations). However in other simulations with a mix of Wilson characters, aggressive or passive, tight or loose, tenacious or irresolute - for any character chosen and in any mix of characters I used (and I tried dozens of mixes) pairs did not fare well. And the same group of two-card combinations (AA, A2s, A2n, A3s, A3n, A4s, A4n) kept cropping up in the top ten regardless of the way the groups were sorted and regardless of the characters used in the sims.

Where were queen pairs? Well... mostly they're losers. Did you know that already?

If so, good for you, but most people wouldn't. I didn't myself before I ran the series of simulations. And what do you think that means for jacks and tens? (Do you think they're any better than queens?)

This is not exactly a secret, but it certainly is something I didn't know before I ran the series of sims. And it doesn't matter which Wilson character is playing them, or if I'm playing them myself against a collection of tough Wilson characters.

I believe it provides fundamental information that people need to improve their game. More importantly, I believe it provides enough information to get people to try the game, yet not enough info to protect them from being outplayed by better players. I think that's a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't help with post-flop strategy which is the place where most losers lose most.

[/ QUOTE ]It's probably true that most losers lose most on the three betting rounds after the first betting round. But losing starts with hand selection. Someone sees the flop with a hand that would have been better folded, perhaps a hand with a pair of queens or even kings or aces, and then
gets caught up in the hand.

Agreed. Yet I think that the tendency of most online players is to play more hands (and weaker starting hands) than they intend to. I feel like there are gains to be made in any event. For example if they follow this hand selection exactly, I can pick up more pots against them. Losing starts with hand selection - yes & no. I can start with bad cards & win a big pot with them much more often than I will lose a big pot with them. I am quite sure you cna do the same. It's about getting away from bad flops, and knowing when you can move someone else off a hand.

[ QUOTE ]
These are not criticisms of it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, Fish. I felt they needed a direct response from me anyhow.

Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have provided excellent information for players wanting to learn to play the game. I doubt that the majority of bad players will make the commitment needed to implement using only these starting hands & then into learning to play them for maximum value postflop as well.

Cheers!