Starting hand requirements in Razz

[jeanbaptiste36]

I am starting out in Razz and I wonder if someone has any pointers on starting hand requirements.

[shadowsnapper]

There is a post entitled quick Razz primer that is either here or on the stud forum that will set you on your way. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Sorry I don't recall which forum though, perhaps that will help. Good luck

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I am starting out in Razz and I wonder if someone has any pointers on starting hand requirements.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest reading TOP and Sklansky on Poker. You need more than just starting hand requirements, good hand reading skills will give you the extra edge.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[Beavis68]

board cards and opponent tendencies are very improtant. but mainly, you want three to an 8 low or better.

[darkcore]

quick razz primer

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
quick razz primer

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that tight raazz primer is really tight. I guess it depends on the structure wioth antes of the game but can it really be right to only play ~15% of the hands (only hands with 3 to 8 low, and even not some of them)? The best hand does get outdrawn, and I'd have thought that losing ante and bringin on the other 85% would not make for a profit. If you play 3 to a 9 (when the door card is a wheel) and A2x and A3x when the x is hidden or when in the bringin I'd think that might make for a better amount of hands played.

[RoundTower]

I'm not very good at this game, but I've played a good bit recently. I fold some 8s and rough 7s depending what is behind me, and didn't think this is too tight. You don't lose the ante/bringin all the time on the other 85%, because some % of those you steal the bringin with any 2 in the hole.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
quick razz primer

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that tight raazz primer is really tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think so at all. You really need to read SOP if you are playing that looser than the post recommends.
If you are calling raises with x2A, xA2, x3A, xA3 unless you are defending against an ante steal from the bringin then you are playing a losing game in the long run. Each of those hands are playable only when you can steal the antes, you are praying it doesn't get to 4th street, and if it does and you don't improve you rarely get past 5th. A 9 is a sucky hand, for example a wheel draw is a favorite to win against a pat 7892A on 5th street.

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2069585
pokenum -mc 500000 -r as 2s 3s 5s kd - 9d 8d 7d ad 2c
Razz (7-card Stud A-5 Low): 500000 sampled outcomes
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As 5s 3s 2s Kd 293162 58.63 206251 41.25 587 0.12 0.587
2c Ad 9d 8d 7d 206251 41.25 293162 58.63 587 0.12 0.413 </pre><hr />


TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
quick razz primer

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that tight raazz primer is really tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think so at all. You really need to read SOP if you are playing that looser than the post recommends.
If you are calling raises with x2A, xA2, x3A, xA3 unless you are defending against an ante steal from the bringin then you are playing a losing game in the long run. Each of those hands are playable only when you can steal the antes, you are praying it doesn't get to 4th street, and if it does and you don't improve you rarely get past 5th. A 9 is a sucky hand, for example a wheel draw is a favorite to win against a pat 7892A on 5th street.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure but I'm not really suggesting calling 2 bets and continuing past 5th street unimproved, but that primer states:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't play a hand that doesn't have three to an 8-low. And, ideally, you'd want that 8 to be concealed... And if you're playing tight, as I suggest, then you really don't want to start with anything less than three to a seven. And, believe it or not, there are times when should you even FOLD three to a seven.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you play only 3 to a 7 you are only playing 10.14% of the hands. And if you add all the 8's where the 8 is concealed that is only 14.2% of hands.

So if you play only 3 to a 7 then 89.86% of the time you fold and lose your ante and, if you brought it in, your bringin.

Assume you are playing 20/40 with a 4 ante and a 5 bringin and a full 8 players at the table. Assuming you never bring it in with 3 to a 7 and that you never win a bring in then this means you need to make an average of 40.61 in profit (above and beyond your own ante/bringin/bets on the hands you play) on each hand you do play. Is the average 3 to a 7 really worth more a big bet in profit? Maybe, I guess it could work.

If you play the concealed 8's with the same assumptions then you only need to win 28.49 in profit per hand you play. That seems more doable.

Obviously board sense and table sense is going to make a difference but I'm not sure limping or completing or calling the complete is a bad thing with some of the hands I described if you can read the boards and it looks normal and you can get away from bad later streets.

I mean are you really saying that you fold in the following situation:

8 players ante 4 each.
Player 1 with a K brings it in for 5.
Player 2 with a Q folds.
Player 3 with a K folds.
Player 4 with an A completes to 20.
Player 5 with a Q folds.
Player 6 with a 2 folds.
Player 7 with a 2 folds.
You with a (K2)A ???

I would think here you should at least call and that raising is better than folding. Afterall assuming the bringin will fold you are calling 20 to win a total pot of 77, so your immediate odds are that you should call if you are just a bit better than 1 in 4 to win.

Even if he's got A23 you have 26.3% equity and it is profitable to call. And if he doesn't have the 4th 2 and has something like A35 you have 33.9% equity. If he's A39 you're 43.5% equity.

And you are about 1/2 to catch better than him on the next street and you are often ~50% if you do and he didn't have the 2 (even with A35) and ~45% if he did have the A23.

[RoundTower]

I would fold here almost always, you make a convincing argument for me to start loosening up here though.