ok, so your not some hack that was gonna try to use wilsons... sim away....

__________________

Yea, i pretty much know what i'm doing. I will probably run the simulation and plot a frequency histogram based on the number of people in any position that play the hand (they play if the have a hand in slanksys grouping 1-8), so if 1 person plays (no raising just calling) you plot how many times the small or big blinds met the starting requirement for a "good hand", and so on for 2 people playing, 3 people, etc. Then i will see if the "good hands" occur in small and big blinds more often when less players are playing the hand.

Try this, to make it a little more realistic, make the first half of the table only play groups 1-4, andf the last half 1-8.

Actually try both.

__________________

I don't own HPFAP... can someone post a link to a website that has the groups to study for free?

google it, i'm to lazy but look for sklanksky hand groups spell his name right though

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

Hey,

I will raise with K8 or better from the button or CO. sometimes I'll raise with less if the players are especially weak, but I don't get the opportunity in most tables.

I also think what Bob said in his post was interesting, but I didn't quite get it. Which sklansky book are you talking about Bob?

Cheers,

Mike

PS. I've also read from Mason somewhere that the blinds aren't necessarily more likely to have good hands because everyone folded to you on button.

We will find out, i will have the simulation done by tommoro. Also I took what you said into account stevo... i made the assumption that players 1-4 will only play group 1,2, and 3 hands while players 5-8 will also play group 4,5, and 6 hands. I decided to also include some likely hands from groups 7 and 8 into what players 5-8 will play as well, such as low pocket pairs, but not all hands like 23 suited etc. I will run the simulation for as many times as it takes for the curve to become consistent, at which point i will have reached the normal distribution.

yikes this thread has suddenly turned into a full blown academic study...!!


This is really a bag of worms... to take up some questions with stuff I've done.. I need time for the other questions.. remember this is not just my game this is based on observation and a bit of modelling.

First of all if you have a strong hand you want as much money (not your own!) in preflop. The broad theory is this given two players on a 9/10 ring table NL:

1] always raises strong hand =pots to go for =big
2] never raise with strong hand (I don't mean AA,KK) = pots to go for = small

over time the person who is 'involved with big pots with strong hands will win more than the guy with strong hands and small pots - it's osmosis (in fact the math is identical).

From what I've found, this is the major reason that you must raise with strength (hole cards and position)


A strong player will on a NL ring 9/10 table :

1] on a table with >50% will raise in mid/late to attack limpers:BUT he doesnt want them to fold. If for example hero has AK and a limper has K9 hero wants limper to call.. because in the 'rare' event that a king flops hero makes a lot of money... the AVERAGE in all other situations is still in favour of hero. However hero wants limpers preflop money.

2] on a table with <50% the value of the blinds become more important but still the most money on average is made by a guy on BB calling with a weak hand rather than folding. What I have come to understand by attacking blinds is that it actually about getting someone to call with a weak hand. Not getting an outright fold - it's about getting money into the pot with ppl playing inferior hands. If his hand is very bad he will fold to a modest rise anyway..

3] The rake thing. Good players play marginal hands well- the problem with marginal hands is that take a lot of betting. If you raise with QJ in mid late you can find yourself up against ppl testing kickers, high mid pair, overcard aggression and draws and the size of the pot grows rapidly (you want this!) . It turns out that if your betting strategy is strong for high pair you do make a profit - about 13%-15% return on investment. BUT this 13%-15% happens an awful lot -it is far more common than trips for example. This is also where the FUN is in poker. The problem is that a rake of 5% actually eats away about 10% of this high pair play over time. AND if your high pair play is poor or even just weak... you become a loser.


More importantly with 5% rake is that some players stop recognising any value in high pair -they intuitively feel that they get outdrawn too much to make it worthwihile - so the game dries up and you end up with rock gardens on certain sites. This is not because strong players do the analysis that I did.. it happens because they tend to modify their game and abandon 'risky' play. The other thing is with a good 'rock' is that when he is on BB and one -on-one he knows you call down with mid pair rather than top pair - so with a good 'rock' you can't even take his blinds..The thing is he isn't putting money on the table enough to make it worthwile playing him. Equally his return when measured over time is a pitiful 3-4bb /100 hands - because he's not getting the opportunity to enter the flop and ppl fold to him when he does.


On Pokertracker I have figures for attacking blinds . And sure enough when the table is tight (<35%) I end up attacking blinds more often. This is actually my measure of table tightness. If I feel I am attacking blinds and winning them directly) and I feel I am bluffing one on ones and the rake is 5%- I know the table is too tight to make a major profit out of...

To more important things... has anyone got Shanna Hyatts number?


Bob

__________________
See me playing $10/$20NL like it was play money

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...405&q=xxdemexx

Doberman: "but Sarge, isn't poker gambling and just luck?"
Sgt. Bilko:" not the way I play it"

I posted a quote from him on the subject on page two, he said almost what I said in the previous post. In holdem since people could well be folding A2, K7 Q6 etc, and playing 67s, 44, etc, whether or not people fold has little affect on the strength of the blinds hands.

It could still have an effect, a simulation could take into account that players will fold all these marginal hands, but are still more likely to play "big cards" such as two face cards AA KK QQ etc. which contain more of the good cards.