What Hand Would You Take Every Time?

[sdfsdf]

it'd be like groundhogs day

[orangepeel]

The starting requrements will not go down. This is the ideal situation

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
if they got amnesia after every hand, i could profitably play any two

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you could, which I very much doubt (your opponents would have to be total donks who never played poker in their lives), that is not to say you would do better by getting 72o every hand than from getting a random hand.

[soon2bepro]

I got the question now. It was what I originally thought of, but DS doesn't explain it like this in his OP.

Anyway, the answer is, as others said, your lowest winrate where winrate > overall winrate.

[jeffnc]

I have a hypothesis that at low limit NL cash games, you could win playing only sets. I'm going to try to get some evidence for that soon. If that were the case, I'd take 22. But I wouldn't take 22 in a limit game. For that I'm thinking somewhere in the region of QTs or 77. It would get awfully damn boring though.

[KenProspero]

$10-20 limit holdem.

This is really a question of what you expect your win rate to be.

For those who said, the worst hand that gives a +ev. I think this analysis is wrong. Let's say that a specific hand has an ev of +$.01 per hand, overall. I wouldn't sit down at a table if I knew that I'd be dealt this every time, making $0.30-$0.40 per hour, just isn't worth it.

So, the question comes down to what one thnks is a reasonable profit to make at this table. The rule of thumb seems to be that 2-3 big bets ($40/60 an hour) is about the best one can expect long run. (Maybe a bit more at 10/20).

If this is the case, you're looking for an average profit per hand in the $1.75 range (including tokes, etc.) Let's round it up $2.00/hand for sake of discussion. That works out to about 0.10 big bets a hand.

So, we're talking about marginally profitable hands, certainly not monsters, but not scraping the barrel either.

My guess is that for a player who has read the right books and knows how to apply the principles, any Group 5 hand would get you there. If David said that a good player would sit down with any Group 6 hand, it wouldn't shock me.

[George Rice]

The answer would depend on the players.

If a lot of players saw the flop and didn't play well afterwards, then a low pair or small suited connectors. I'm not sure which is worse (probably the small pair).

If the game was reletively tight and the players played well, then high cards like AQo or AJs, maybe KQ or KJs, and pairs 77 and above. Maybe 99 and above if the game was very aggressive.

Obviously there are situations where I would like to play other hands, but since I have to play the same hand every time under all situations, that is my range.

One of the problems with this question is that there will be "worse" hands you may want every time and "better" hands you won't want, given the players at your table. K9o is a better hand than 76s but you may want to play 76s in the multi-way game and not K9o. So you have to change your ranking of hands for every variation of opponents.

Edit: And the number of opponents also changes the hand rankings.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
For those who said, the worst hand that gives a +ev. I think this analysis is wrong. Let's say that a specific hand has an ev of +$.01 per hand, overall. I wouldn't sit down at a table if I knew that I'd be dealt this every time, making $0.30-$0.40 per hour, just isn't worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right; too bad no one said that. What I said was where winrate > overall winrate, meaning if your winrate is 1.8BB/100, a hand that gives .5BB/100 would not qualify under the method I mentioned.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming everyone has amnesia after each hand

[/ QUOTE ]

If "everyone" has amnesia I assume that means that you have amnesia also. That means that you would play the same hand the same way depending on position everytime. It means that everyone else would be dealt a random hand from the remaining 50 cards and they would play their normal game form every position.

If you are a winner under normal conditions you want a hand that allows you to increase your profits without havng to change the way you play it. So the hand(s) would have to be one that allows you to win enough when you play it to compensate for the hands that you normally play and produce a profit but now you never play.

At first it appears that 9,9 is the best choice. 9,9 is a hand that under normal conditions can be played from every position for a profit. If you had 9,9 in late position and the blinds every time, I imagine one could not only increase their profits but basically destroy any game they played in. But it may also be true for 6,6-8,8 except for being playable up front, always having these hands in middle, late position and the blinds could also prove to be more profitable than being dealt random cards in every position.

As for Axs or J,Ts these hands may be more game dependant and require more information concerning opponents. Of course there also is a debate as to whether or not A,6,s is a worse or better hand than J,Ts. The answer to this is also somewhat dependant on how well one plays. Which also leads to YOU and how you play. How do you derive your profits? Perfect preflop play coupled with so-so post flop play. LAG preflop play coupled with great post flop play? These factors all have a bearing on which hand you should select. If you are a perfect preflop player and so - so post flop then you should take 9,9 or maybe a smaller pair to 6,6. A LAG preflop player - great post flop player would probably do better with a suited connector like J,Ts, or even T,9s.

I like to play a lot of hands. I want a hand that allows me to play a lot of hands. I choose J,Ts maybe even T,9s.

leaponthis

[KenProspero]

I misread your post. Mea Culpa