Noob trying to understand starting hands :(

[Tjorriemorrie]

I used the EV values from that chart on this site. The 10players one (SB, BB, UTG, +1, +2, MP, +1, +2, CO, BTN). Played around with it to see what starting hands is good and should be played from what position. My goal is to learn more about starting hands since I don’t know how to use SF% and Vp%iP, i.e. I can’t put the villain on range of hands based on his stat.

I’m going to look at it per group as also per this site. There is a total of 61 hands. Now the Total number of startings hands is 52x51 = 2,652, right? But, since you only consider whether it’s suited or not, leaves many pairings out. Thus leaves you with 169 considered hands as per the EV article. Now 61/169 = 36% So if you follow the groups, I assume you are willing to play 37% of the considered total hands.

I averaged the total EV per all the starting positions and sorted the sheet. The numbers below the hand shows their rank according to that. (please note that for me to see in which position it’s playable I didn’t consider PRF’s)

I thought some hands would improve more than others if it is played in a later position. But I couldn’t pick anything significant/identifiable up. It appears all the hands has the same margin of better EV if being played in a later position. The average of all the hands if played in MP+2, CO or BTN against if played in all positions were about 0.06 with variances of mostly between 0.01-0.03

Group 0 (2/2 hands – 1.2% [2/169])
#1 AA
#2 KK
– These are monsters. nuff said
– Playable from any position.

Group 1 (3/5 hands – 3.0%)
#3 QQ
#5 JJ
#4 AKs
- Interesting the QQ has 0.41 more EV as AKs & JJ. The latter are very close to each other as well.
- Playable from any position

Group 2 (5/10 hands – 5.9%)
#8 TT
#7 AK
#6 AQs
#9 AJS
#10 KQs
- the EV order differ that AQs > AK > TT
- still good EV’s and playable from any position.

Group 3 (6/16 hands – 9.5%)
#12 AQ
#13 99
#11 ATs
#14 KJs
#15 QJs
#18 KTs
- #16 is 88 and #17 A9s, but the EV only differs about .04 so I don’t think it’s a big concern.
- Should also be playable from all positions. (from renton’s article it appears he starts raising with the above groups’ hands from UTG to get as few people in, and considering the +EV I thinks that’s smart).

Group 4 (8/24 hands – 14.2%)
#16 88
#19 AJ
#20 KQ
#23 QTs
#17 A9s
#21 JTs
#33 AT
#25 A8s
- here AT has fallen off the bus. As per the chart it has negative EV in the blinds and UTG & UTG+1, giving it an overall negative EV of -0.01. Here 77 is in #22 position, but I only think it’s so high coz it’s played for the 3kind. All these hands have positive EV on all positions, but it is getting very low, so some caution is advised.
- Still appears to be playable from all positions (even though AT has negative EV in the first positions) (It appears Renton raise with this group from MP, but appears he folds them to a raise?)

Interesting for me here is to realise that JTs (going for flush and/or straight) is better than AT (going for highest pair).

Group 5 (11/35 hands – 20.7%)
#37 KJ
#22 77
#46 QJ
#56 KT
#63 QT
#60 JT
#26 A7s
#29 K9s
#32 Q9s
#31 T9s
#39 J9s
- The suited pairs here are much more +EV than the non-suited hands….the average EV is negative for these hands but if played in the last 3 positions most of them still have +EV. QT & JT was remarkably lower, considering Q9s was much higher.
- All these hands are negative in the blinds and UTG(+1/+2). It appears these hands you must play from the last 6 positions or MP. This is where I’m still wondering about PFR’s, it doesn’t look feasible to call with these hands that have average –EV.

Group 6 (10/45 hands – 26.6%)
#27 66
#36 55
#35 44
#44 33
#50 22
#24 A5s
#40 A6s
#28 A4s
#30 A3s
#38 A2s
- The hands have +EV from UTG+2, one position earlier than group 5. Also, the pairs have an average total –EV and the A’s have about breakeven EV. Most importantly, all these hands doesn’t seem to benefit as much as others by being played from a later positon, with their variance (to the average 0.06 improvement) between -0.03..-0.06). So this group is limping in to either get nuts or fold. So if you don’t have the TP or straight/flush draws with the A’s, fold.
- Although considering the idea of these hands and that they should be playing from SB, I would prefer to play them from MP just to have less players behind me to raise, to which I think I should fold. It appears this group is the most beneficial to limp from SB. I don’t think I’m going to call raises.

Group 7 (16/61 hands – 36.1%)
#132 A9
#140 K9
#45 98s
#47 87s
#41 76s
Kxs (#43 K8s - #42 K7s - #51 K6s - #52 K5s - #55 K4s - #68 K3s - #103 K2s)
#34 T8s
#49 97s
#59 86s
#53 54s
- Clearly the A9 & K9 is doing much worse than it gets rated…or just played very incorrectly. All these hands have considerable average –EV with never becoming +EV in any position.
- I’m only going to play these hands from CO & BTN and never call raise**, jip, not even with #132 A9 (although #17 A9s is another story).

Next five that’s not in groups:
#48 64s
#54 Q8s
#57 T7s
#58 65s
#61 74s
Amazingly A6-A2 was in the last 5 positions, lol. Probably also played incorrectly like A9, K9

So there you have you’re 36.1% of the considered hands.

So let me try to conclude this part (RB=raise before you)
Group 0: Any position raise. RB: reraise.
Group 1: Any position raise. RB: call
Group 2: Any position raise. RB: call
Group 3: Any position raise. (maybe not that big a raise). RB: call
Group 4: Any position call. (appears raisable from MP). RB: call if small (otherwise fold certain hands like Renton).
Group 5: call from MP. RB: fold (unless min raise).
Group 6: call from MP. RB: fold
Group 7: call from CO & BTN. RB: fold

But this wasn’t the point, now was it :P

I think VPIP and SF is good indicators to have. How bigger the difference between the 2, the more indicative it should be of how loose the person is. For now lets just not assume any fancy difficult stuff:

Group 0 (2/2 hands – 1.2%)
Group 1 (3/5 hands – 3.0%)
Group 2 (5/10 hands – 5.9%)
Group 3 (6/16 hands – 9.5%)
Group 4 (8/24 hands – 14.2%)
Group 5 (11/35 hands – 20.7%)
Group 6 (10/45 hands – 26.6%)
Group 7 (16/61 hands – 36.1%)

Thus a my SF should be below 36% as I don’t play group 5-7 from all positions. Thus someone with a SF of 15% playes from group 4 or about 24 hands (and not maybe all those from group 4 as he probably playes the pocket pairs from group 6).

My VPIP is 17 which is too low for my liking, which is why I decided to see what hands I can start playing as well and from what position. Please comment on my post.

**But then only playing group 7 from CO & BTN would mean you’re SF would be close to 28% or there. So you may decide limping from MP on tight table? Also, if you’re in MP/MP+1 and there’s a raise in front of you of 4xBB and you have a group 6/7 hand, what do you normally do? I’m not sure if I’ll wanna call that…what about 2xBB? Does it depends on who is raising?

Overall, is this correct? I’ve seen players with VPIP > 55, which should then mean they call most raises and play total crap like 72 and 94??

[jyms]

yea, nice homework. If you play 36% or thereabouts, you will go broke. 17% is almost perfect for 6 max at $100NL and lower. 14% or less for FR. You have it right when talking about positions and hands expansion, but I don't know why you would want to add hands that will just make decisions harder post flop against players that don't care what you have anyway.

[Renton]

you are kinda wasting your time with all those groups.

Just figure out what hands flop well and what hands have no playability at all and go from there.

Pairs, Suited Ax's, all hands with both cards higher than 9, suited connecting cards higher than 54s/75s/96s are all profitable, playable hands. The rest simply aren't, so don't play them.

The ranking thing is just based on hot and cold preflop equity, which is useless in no limit poker. When stacks are 100 big blinds deep, you almost never get all in preflop. You need hands that give u instant feedback on the flop as to whether u should be moving on with the hand. K8o doesn't accomplish this, even though its a favorite over 98s.

The only part of that ranking system you should know is the top ten or so hands. Understand that in order of profitability, you will be making the most money with AA, then KK, then QQ, AK, JJ, TT respectively.

Understand that AQ is much less profitable than AK because while AK is only dominated by 6 hands (3 combinations each of AA and KK), AQ is actually dominated by 24 hands (3 AA, 3 QQ, 6 KK, 12 AK).

Understand that AKs is actually over 40% to win against a range of exactly AK KK+.

You really only need to worry about a few tidbits when it comes to preflop hand values in no limit.

[Warpe]

yea, nice homework. If you play 36% or thereabouts, you will go broke. 17% is almost perfect for 6 max at $100NL and lower. 14% or less for FR. You have it right when talking about positions and hands expansion, but I don't know why you would want to add hands that will just make decisions harder post flop against players that don't care what you have anyway.

17% is starting to flirt with nitty for 6-max, imo. Nothing wrong with that, but some LP aggression with a wider range should pop those numbers up a couple of points.

[jyms]

At $10NL, I like nitty.

[biondino]

17% is almost perfect for 6 max at $100NL and lower.

17% is starting to flirt with nitty for 6-max, imo.

17% is spying nitty across a crowded bar, exchanging coy looks, buying nitty a drink, having a dance together, leaving together, snogging in the taxi, blowjob in the lift and shagging nitty on the hallway carpet, for 6max, imo.

(and I'm a weak tight nitto "the nit" nittgenstein at 6max with my 24% VP)

[Renton]

LOL GREAT BRITAIN

[Warpe]

I'm still lolling

[jackvance]

If he's gonna play full ring, 17vpip is probably normal. In 6max it's way too nitty though

[XTR1000]

blowjob in the lift

i knew my 18/8 will get paid one day

[Tjorriemorrie]

Thanks for everyone's input. im plying 10 full ring btw. What Renton said about playing hands that gives good feedback on the flop makes a lotta sense.

But at least still help me with this. The x-tra loose players play crap, right? But if they are aggressive how do you know they didn't hit something when the flop is rags?

[Pelion]

The x-tra loose players play crap, right?

Duh!

Thats pretty much what extra loose means.

Also poker usually isnt about knowing youre ahead. Its about knowing that in a certain situation you are ahead 75% of the time and behind 25% of the time. Thats alot easier to work out. In fact its more than that. its knowing you are way ahead 75% of the time and slightly behind 25% of the time. You can loose plenty by calling down with TPWK Vs a very LAG BUT The good players wont care too much because theyll realise (from experience) that most of the time the super LAG will have nothing so they know that even when they lose they were in a 75/25 situaton. They see it as the same thing as getting allin with AA preflop and losing sometimes. Obviously this doesnt apply when playing against tight players

[NWNewell]

I’m going to look at it per group as also per this site. There is a total of 61 hands. Now the Total number of startings hands is 52x51 = 2,652, right? But, since you only consider whether it’s suited or not, leaves many pairings out. Thus leaves you with 169 considered hands as per the EV article. Now 61/169 = 36% So if you follow the groups, I assume you are willing to play 37% of the considered total hands.
.
.
.

Group 0 (2/2 hands – 1.2% [2/169])
#1 AA
#2 KK
– These are monsters. nuff said
– Playable from any position.

Group 1 (3/5 hands – 3.0%)
#3 QQ
#5 JJ
#4 AKs
- Interesting the QQ has 0.41 more EV as AKs & JJ. The latter are very close to each other as well.
- Playable from any position

Group 2 (5/10 hands – 5.9%)
#8 TT
#7 AK
#6 AQs
#9 AJS
#10 KQs

You're idea is sound, but as Renton said, I think it might have more value in Limit Hold'em than No Limit. None the less... still good info and concept to know about. And good to use as a general guideline especially for Limit.

However, your approach to the calculations needs some correction.

You are right that 2652, is too many because of redundent combinations. However, 169 is not the right number either. You should cut 2652 in half (i.e. A :club K :heart and K :heart A :club is only one combination, not two) and use 1326.

And why is 169 no good?

You see, if we look at AKo... that is 1 hand. 1 of 169. However, that one hand as 12 different combinations. 12 of 1326 (A:club K :heart, A:club K:diamond, A:club K:spade, etc). If you use 1 out of 169 you get 0.59% Using 12 of 1326 you get 0.9%.

Now look at AA. Using 169, that is 1 hand out of 169 = 0.59%. But if we use 1326, we have 6 possible combinations. 6 of 1326 = 0.45%

Obviously we are not going to get AA the same number of times as AKo, and it makes sense that we will get AKo more than AA. So, you can easily see that using 169 is not the correct way to correlate hand ranges to percentages. You should use 1326.

Notice if you re-run your numbers you will wind up with 0.9% for Group 0, 2.1% for Group 1 & 0, and 4.36 for Group 0-2 (not 1.2%, 3.0%, and 5.9% respectively).