2 categories

This is an experiment only. Pure theory, never tried at a table:

Instead of having a host of different groups of starting hands, playable from various positions depending on situation, how about just 2?

The median hole cards are Q7 if I'm not mistaken. So the 2 categories would be:

1) Cards that beat Q7
2) Cards that don't

With the first category being playable. any king/ace/pair, or a Q with a better kicker than 7. Ignore the suits.

Clearly, this is not for a high-skill or high-stakes game, though I'd love to see someone with the cojones to play it. One advantage, obviously, is that you see amost 50% of flops. If your postflop play is good, you should be able to make money from beginners/loose-passives.

you have to consider the fact that though you may have the median card that beats 50% of the field, the other 50% beats you.

I'd think playing like this will be very hard

Playing liek this would be impossible.

it would require someoen to have a worse than than you 51% of the time.

Playing 20% of hands its hard engough to win 51% of the time.

So, then you wouldn't play 22?

22 is good. It beats a Queen high. I mean play any hole cards that -- if they were the only cards in your poker hand -- would beat a Q with a 7.

also, 22 is 52% favorite over Q7off, according to
http://simulator.pokertips.org/simulator.php

Like most strategies, I can't rule it out as "impossible". You just have to know precisely what it is good for. Same thing with hole cards: Axs is not good for pairs -- it's good for flushes.

So: in my opinion a 2-card strategy is good for those games with multiple maniacs, drunks & flirts etc. You can't waste energy trying to analyze the table texture/play patterns in such a game.

I don't know if it's good for much else.

Originally Posted by LeFou

also, 22 is 52% favorite over Q7off, according to
http://simulator.pokertips.org/simulator.php

22 is a dog against random hands 3-5 way, then it picks up value. 10-way it's better than average. Although Q7 is ranked 131 out of 169 10-way, so is this average thing only for heads-up?

If we're talking heads-up value then you wouldn't play JTs, because it's a dog to Q7o heads-up? 98s?

I guess what I'm getting at is the sillyness of this. There is no linear ranking of starting hold'em hands. Different starting hands play well in different situations. You need to look at the value of hands in 3 (maybe more?) dimensions, not just 1.

LeFou, I liked your other avatar better

Originally Posted by Fnord

I guess what I'm getting at is the sillyness of this. There is no linear ranking of starting hold'em hands. Different starting hands play well in different situations. You need to look at the value of hands in 3 (maybe more?) dimensions, not just 1.

Yeah, I'll readily admit this is not likely to be a great idea. Not a get-rich-quick scheme. But if thinking it over can teach us anything about poker, I say go for it.

Technically, it would only be useful headup -- pick a hand > Q7 and you're a 50.001% favorite to two random cards. But I suspect that cards are about as important headup as position -- i.e. not very.

Theater & guts are about 75% of a headup session, in my opinion. Cards might be 20% and position the other 5..