Sklansky's 7 Groups of starting hands

[sparky3474]

Are Sklansky's 7 Groups of starting hands as good as they can be? We have EV data and simulations available that suggest some hands in Groups 4,5,6 and 7 could be revised. I found a simulation called "Players Guide" with other recommendations, is this better or more accurate? See www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/

[emerson]

Only the very highest hands can be ranked. They are correct. All the others vary depending the type of line-up. In a tight aggressive game 99 is rather good. You raise preflop, have a heads up pot, and have a good chance of winning unimproved. In a loose passive game it is just another small pocket pair. The Sklansky rankings are correct for the assumptions upon which they are based.

[sparky3474]

I guess what bothers me is some of the hands in Group 7, which should be only played from the button differ greatly. For instaneous the simulation showed that 33, 22, 75s, 64s, 43s and 98o should never be played, what is your take on those hands?

[4CardStraight]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what bothers me is some of the hands in Group 7, which should be only played from the button differ greatly. For instaneous the simulation showed that 33, 22, 75s, 64s, 43s and 98o should never be played, what is your take on those hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends what kind of poker you are talking about.

Pretend you are at a full ring game of no limit poker and everyone is deep stacked. You are on the button, and get dealt any of those hands you listed. Everyone limps to you. If you fold, you are probably retarded.

From the button, in a no limit deep stacked game, when everyone limps to you, all hands have +EV if you are a skilled player. 33 and 22 are very powerful no limit hands in position against a pre flop raiser as well. To suggest otherwise because of a computer simulation of hand equity shows a fundamental misunderstanding of poker. Sure these hands arent super likely to win, but in position, when they do make big hands they can make very big profits, and if they dont make big hands, they lose very small pots.

[Barfunkel]

[ QUOTE ]
Only the very highest hands can be ranked. They are correct. All the others vary depending the type of line-up. In a tight aggressive game 99 is rather good. You raise preflop, have a heads up pot, and have a good chance of winning unimproved. In a loose passive game it is just another small pocket pair. The Sklansky rankings are correct for the assumptions upon which they are based.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a loose passive game the 99 will often win unimproved when at least two streets are only checked (quite common in such games) so it is a bit better than small pairs. It's not a preflop raising hand after limpers though as you don't have that much fold equity and your opponents will often call with any two face cars. In the passive games I tend to play the mid pairs way more passively than against good opponents.

[Phone Booth]

[ QUOTE ]
Are Sklansky's 7 Groups of starting hands as good as they can be? We have EV data and simulations available that suggest some hands in Groups 4,5,6 and 7 could be revised. I found a simulation called "Players Guide" with other recommendations, is this better or more accurate? See www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/

[/ QUOTE ]

First, this is specific to limit holdem. Second, whoever did this simulation doesn't understand implied odds, so the results are worthless. That's why he arrives at erroneous conclusions such as AA/KK/QQ play better in multiway pots and AKs doesn't.

[sparky3474]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are Sklansky's 7 Groups of starting hands as good as they can be? We have EV data and simulations available that suggest some hands in Groups 4,5,6 and 7 could be revised. I found a simulation called "Players Guide" with other recommendations, is this better or more accurate? See www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/

[/ QUOTE ]

First, this is specific to limit holdem. Second, whoever did this simulation doesn't understand implied odds, so the results are worthless. That's why he arrives at erroneous conclusions such as AA/KK/QQ play better in multiway pots and AKs doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well limit is what I was talking about but please help me here I am new but have read alot and just don't know how you can say that? I can't even fathom how implied odds comes into the mix here.

[Phone Booth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are Sklansky's 7 Groups of starting hands as good as they can be? We have EV data and simulations available that suggest some hands in Groups 4,5,6 and 7 could be revised. I found a simulation called "Players Guide" with other recommendations, is this better or more accurate? See www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/

[/ QUOTE ]

First, this is specific to limit holdem. Second, whoever did this simulation doesn't understand implied odds, so the results are worthless. That's why he arrives at erroneous conclusions such as AA/KK/QQ play better in multiway pots and AKs doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well limit is what I was talking about but please help me here I am new but have read alot and just don't know how you can say that? I can't even fathom how implied odds comes into the mix here.

[/ QUOTE ]

In multiway pots, you lose, on average, more with AA/KK/QQ when you lose than you lose with AKs. The simulation doesn't incorporate that since the hero plays aggressively all the way to the river regardless.