Talk:Texas hold 'em starting hands

Walking Back to Houston

I am pretty sure that "Walking Back To Houston" was slang in Dallas for AK, not AQ. That's what T.J. Cloutier says, and if anyone would know, he would. Google comes up with both answers, but in the case of AQ, it appears that most of the references are cut-and-pasted from the previous Wiki version that called AQ by that name. Jive Dadson 00:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is KK worse than 2-to-1 against AA? I got that number from a program online that purports to compute poker odds, but I didn't check the math myself. My bad. EventHorizon 15:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The computer I checked gave me AA winning about 82% of the time, KK about 18%. It seems reasonable. Think what KK has to do to overtake AA. It must either catch a K (without catching an A) or a freak straight or flush, with help from 4 board cards. This isn't going to happen often. The reason 87s is better is that there are many possibilities for catching 2 pair, a straight, or a flush, that do not help AA in any way. Revolver 23:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason I say that it's not true that AK "has no intrinsic value" is because against few opponents (say, 2 or even 3) it will often win the showdown without pairing up. This is a measure of value. When its heads-up or 3-way, frequently no one will pair at all, and in these cases, AK has value because it's the "nut no-pair". Revolver 23:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unless people are math-fluent, I'm not sure mentioning the term "equivalence class" is going to mean much to them. Maybe I'm wrong. Also, I think more people will immediately understand what it means to say suits have no "relative value", whereas they may be left scratching their heads wondering what "suit-symmetric" means. Revolver 23:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I'm sorry to have posted that earlier about "2-to-1" odds; evidently I was mistaken. The source I used was a "Monte Carlo" calculator-- instead of running through all 2.6 million possibilities for the board card, it used results over a small sample to calculate the %odds, and claimed that AA had about a 66% chance of beating KK. I guess that the N wasn't very big. Apologies for the inaccuracy.

Yes, AK is pretty powerful on account of its nut "no-pair" status. I guess I should clarify; by "made hand" I meant a hand that had already congealed into something powerful (trips, flush, straight). You're right that an AK, while not strictly guaranteeing more than an ace-high, is still very powerful in small games.

A lot of it has to do with the game, too. At the higher limits, even at a full table, it's not unusual to go 2 or 3 hands without seeing a flop, or to routinely have only 2 or 3 players see the flop. It's easier for AK to hold up then. Of course, this isn't true in most lower-limit, looser, games, where I would definitely say AK is a "drawing hand". Revolver 08:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking over it, I agree that "suit symmetric" is wordy and opaque. Same with "equivalence classes".

I'm going to remove the claim that 72 beats 32 heads-up. I believe it to be true, and will probably check the math shortly. However, I verified this (now slightly dubious) fact with the same odds calculator that gave AA 2-to-1 over KK. If anyone else performs the arithmetic and finds the claim to hold, feel free to reinstate it. EventHorizon 04:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure 72 beats 32 headsup. Let me check at the UB page. Revolver 08:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They give 65/35 advantage to 72. This sounds about right, but it must be discounting split pots (it would seem this would be more than 1-2%.) Yes, it does, I had 77 vs. 77 headsup and it gave "50/50", so obviously splits are not counted. Revolver 08:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

72 vs AK

Checking this site, 72 seems to only win 32% of the time against AK. I'm changing the article, unless anyone thinks there's something wrong with the stats? Evercat 12:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AA holding up

I'm adjusting the bit on AA to say that it should hold up 50.5 % of the time in that situation, at least according to http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1066927 - however, I'd be a bit uneasy playing it against 3 opponents. Although you're favourite to win, the size of the pot you'll lose if you're beat (in a no-limit game, at least) is much larger than what you'll win if you're not. So I'm not sure that it plays well "whether many or few players see the flop"... Evercat 5 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

The size of the half pots you lose will be same as the half pots you win, getting three to one if you are all-in pre-flop. If you play any hand horribly it can be a loser, like folding the nuts on the river, so it plays well regardless the number of opponents or whether limit or no limit. There isn't a reason to single this hand out to say that it can be played badly, since all hands can. 2005 July 5, 2005 06:26 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

I suggest this article be merged with List of slang names for poker hands. Both contain the same info, save that this article includes more math and more focus on the better-known hands. D.valued 05:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging is a good idea. We hardly need two of these. That one should be the one that is kept since it is more general. 2005 06:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, they do not contain the same info - the List of slang names for poker hands contains names of poker hands in other forms of poker as well. So even if we moved the list of hold-em hands here, there would still have to be another page to hold that material anyway. Plus to which, Poker slang is a natural search term, and right now that redirs to List of slang names for poker hands; if the latter page were gone, there's no natural place to redirect it. I would support moving the slang stuff out of this article (leaving a link to List of slang names for poker hands), to prevent duplication. Noel (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I support merging, along with clearing out some of the duplicated material. The page should probably be under Poker Hands, with a section for Hold 'Em starting hands. I say keep the slang as well as having the stats - there's no need to have two pages for poker hands.--128.232.239.130 18:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Poker is not HE. As the other person says, there is more slang than just HE slang. Dead man's hand originated from 5D, not HE. If I wanted 5D slang, I would hate to read through all the HE discussion.

This page and the slang page should remain separate articles.--Toms2866 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Chen Point Count

I've added the Chen point primarily for instructional reasons. I think this article is mainly of use to beginners. The Chen point count does 4 things the S&M grouping don't do:

1. It explains what is good and what is bad
2. It creates a good idea of how good vs. how bad
3. It doesn't require memorization
4. It gets people used to point counts (which are heavily used in other games like Omaha)

Anyway if you don't want it here I'd be willing to break it off as a separate article. It does seem to fit. jbolden1517^Talk 05:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Chen point is useful and should stay. However I think it needs to be explained a bit better and have more examples. I'm a poker novice but have pretty good maths skills and I had trouble understanding it. For example, in the second example, why is 9 and 7 a 1 gapper, when there would appear to be a gap of 2? At what point do you round up fractions, right at the end as the second example says, or at step 3? I'm sure there are more things that could be clarified. Rbha7 01:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This needs review. The 12-Chen Point Count does not sound right. For example AA=20 chen point. 12-20=-8.

---

In answer to the two question.

1. The size of the gap in the number of numbers contained within it. That is between 9 and 7 the only number inbetween is 8, hence a 1 gapper. I assume you are getting 2 from, 9-7=2 forgetting that by doing this you are actually counting 9 as part of the gap (i.e.) (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)/(1,2,3,4,5,6,7) = (8,9)

1. In terms of -8, -8 < 1 so its in group 1. I'm assuming common sense, similarly for say 2,7 offsuit in the other direction.

I am confused by T7 suited though: 5, +0, +0, -2, +2, +0 = 5, so that should make it 12-5 = 7, so why is it not on the chart? Is it an error on the chart or with the Chen calculation? It does look like an omission on the chart from a purely visual point of view. Also, I found point 2 in the instructions to be confusing. Perhaps "If the 2nd card makes a pair the score is doubled, unless the cards are below 5 in which case the score is now 5."?

T7 suited is in SM group 7. Good job you found an error in the chart! jbolden1517^Talk 04:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It was hard to me understand the explanation with so few examples. I think we should add more examples like AA. I think there is another error with T8 not suited: 5, +0, +0, -1, +0, +1 = 5 then 12-5=7, and in the chart appears an 8. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ElPasmo (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

---

There are a number of other errors (besides the ones already listed on the page) that I see with the computation versus the chart (perhaps my calculations are off). I am getting:

• ATs = 4 (3 on the chart)
• QXs = 8 (nothing on the chart)
• Q9 = 7 (8 on the chart)
• T9 = 6 (7 on the chart)

Overall, I think this calculation is flawed and, if the count continues to be included on this page, it should not be presented as being equivalent to the table, because it really is not. Almost every boundary between the playable and non-playable hands is different in the count and the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoz420 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the chart and the formula do not match. All hands with an Ace would be a minimum group 5 (10-5) whether suited or not, right? I actually like to play Ace, so I'd go with the Chen formula, but I'm also trying to learn so which is right. 25 November 2008

Focus for this article

Would it be we worth expanding this article to be about "Texas hold 'em pre-flop strategy"? Having an article about the starting hands themselves isn't very interesting. For example, we have the Sklansky/Malmuth starting hand groups - but no discussion of what to do with those groups. So I was thinking:

• Discussion of basic categories of starting hands: suited, unsuited, pairs, connected vs unconnected.
• Groups/ratings according to different authors.
• How to play the different starting hands, according to hand and position, and possibly other factors.

Any thoughts? Stevage 03:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think some type of discussion of strategy is appropriate. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Strategy should never be a significant part of any article. By definition it is POV. There definitely should not be a pre-flop strategy part. That would be like talking about only one part of a car. (The charts are already questionable, but they just state facts.) 2005 05:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But a section on the strategy of hand selection would seem appropriate, don't you think? The strategy obviously needs to be sourced and not original research, but certainly we have many articles that discuss notable POV. The article itself simply needs to refrain from adopting any particular POV, not from discussion of notable POVs. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, clearly not. Why would you think so? Starting hand strategy ideas are wildly different. Also starting hands in limit, no limit, and both tournaments are wildly different. A strategy section makes no sense. It is even terrible to suggest users actually use any starting hand chart. This is an encyclopedia, not a game guide. We say what things are, not what or how or why to do things. 2005 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I would include tables and such, but there are certainly generally agreed upon aspects to starting hands. For instance, small pocket pairs may be ok to play heads up, but not against several opponents. I think there is enough overlap in starting hand strategy to include a general discussion of the principles involved in hand selection. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem. Small pocket pairs are not a good hand to play heads up! That's horrible poker, and while some folks may think that, it certainly is not commonly accepted strategy. They need multiple players to get the implied odds they need. Regardless though, any opinion like that has no place in an article like this. If you want to promote opinion, especially non-standard one, post it on an opinion website. 2005 10:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Strategy most certainly is encyclopaedic and not "just opinion". Obviously we will refer to the major published works, like Brunson's Super System, Sklansky/Malmuth, and Lee Jone's "Winning at limit hold 'em". There's quite a lot of overlap between their recommendations, and it would be interesting to record the deviations. Stevage 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how do you justify that? POV is not allowed, and it is quite obviously all opinion, whether there is major published works on it or not. Opinion is not appropriate, especially bad opinion, so let's move on please. If you want to present information on a person or book's opinion, do that in the article about the person or book, not here. 2005 21:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) There's certainly nothing wrong with covering opinions in an aricle, as long as they are properly attributed and covered in a neutral way; read the guidelines carefully--points of view are absolutely proper Wikipedia material; we just don't want the points of view of Wikipedia authors themselves affecting the text. (2) Proper strategy for a game is not a matter of opinion, but what various people believe that strategy to be might be, because our math isn't advanced enough. But that's no reason not to cover some of that expert opinion and the math and reasoning behind it. (3) Small pairs are good to play heads up and all in, where the fact that they are likely to hold up unimproved makes up for the fact that it's hard to know when they are still good in the face of overcards; also, they're good head up in position at no limit play where one can often get 10-to-1 or greater implied odds, plus more bluff equity. In limit play, they're generally only good in large multi-way pots as you note. (4) Again, ideas like these are entirely appropriate for Wikipedia articles as long as they are propery attributed to recognized authorities in the field. --LDC 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is quite clear. As noted before, there is nothing wrong with saying "John Smith advocates playing small pairs such and such a way" and then citing it. But there is everything wrong with sentences like "small pocket pairs may be ok to play heads up, but not against several opponents" and not just because it is completely wrong. An article like this is limited. In no way should it endeavor to propose proper poker strategy. It can say someone else's POV, but the best way to do that is to have brief summaries of someone's opinion here, then longer passages in the articles devoted to that person (or book). The Lee jones article would greatly benefit from a significant summary of strategy, while it would not nearly as appropriate here. 2005 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

2005, I think your understanding of NPOV is overly conservative. NPOV simply means that the article itself takes the most commonly held view as the central view, where appropriate. In an article on poker strategy, this would translate to a statement like "High pairs play best short handed, so most poker authorities recommend raising pre-flop to drive out marginal hands.[citation] Some poker experts disagree, claiming that ...." You're wrong in saying that we should stop at "John Smith says x and y. Bill Jones says y and z." - it's poor stylistically, and much less helpful than "In general, y. This view is supported by most experts, including John Smith and Bill Jones. However, Smith recommends x whereas Jones recommends z." Now, can we get back to ideas on how to restructure this article (and related articles)? Stevage 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV simply means that the article itself takes the most commonly held view as the central view, where appropriate." It certainly does not mean that. We don't say in a movie article that Alfred Hitchcock is best film director ever, even though that would be the most commonly held view. But more to the point this is nonsense: "High pairs play best short handed, so most poker authorities recommend raising pre-flop to drive out marginal hands." That is not true, not sensible, and certainly not mainstream thought. Two aces want everybody, for as much money as people will put in. Under no circumstances should editors speculate about "common" view, especially plainly wrong ones. So let's please not go down such a mistaken road. If you want to say somebody says something, fine, but proposing this article says plainly untrue things are the norm is silly, and its even sillier to have a discussion about it. It's POV, period. If you think AA wants to drive lousy hands out pre-flop, that is your point of view. I'll disagree, and certainly not let such bad advice be in an article. But I also wouldn't want the correct advice because someone else can have a differing viewpoint based on style of game or other considerations. How do your opponents play? Where are the chips distributed? Who is the live one? Who lost the last pot? Etc. Again, put authorities opinions in the authoritiy's articles, and do not put the opinion of any editors in articles. C'mon, this is awfully straightforward. 2005 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, really. Read what I wrote: "High pairs play best short handed, so most poker authorities recommend raising pre-flop to drive out marginal hands.[citation]" - See the bit where I make reference to "most poker authorities" and "citation"? Leaving aside the spurious issue of whether my example is actually valid, we agree that it's worth including the opinions of authorities on poker strategy. We do "speculate about the the common view" - we work out what view is accepted by the most authoritative authors, and we devote less space to fringe views. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue here. Stevage 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"See the bit where I make reference to "most poker authorities" and "citation"?" And that was tyhe bit that was both plainly wrong, and the exact thing articles should never, ever do. It's not our business to judge, or award a "most authorities" award. I think you need to read Wiki policies since you are stating ideas completely counter to how articles are written. We don't say what is best. We just say what is. Though you didn't intend it, your examples show precicely why it is never right for editors to declare a point of view, especially on something like poker, where for starters most players play bad, so what most people do (which is not most authorities) is no measure at all of what is best. As Doug bell says below, concepts should be presented, not specific strategies affirmed. 2005 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A suggested compromise

2005 makes some valid points I think. I have a suggestion I think might work. Rather than discuss specific strategies related to specific hands, how about we include a discussion of the general strategies associated with starting hands. Instead of saying "with this hand many people say do that", we instead talk about the issues affecting hand selection: position, number of people in the pot, likelyhood of hand winning without improving, likelyhood of hand improving, pot odds, implied odds, etc. Discuss all of these aspects in the specific context of starting hand selection, but without identifying any specific strategy. While I think 2005 has some valid points regarding over-simplification of strategy by only discussing hand, I certainly think that the underlying concepts have a great deal of common ground. Don't shoot me, aim at my suggestion please. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what should be involved. What issues impact on starting hands (or whatever)? Not what hands to play, as that at the very least is always more dependent on the actual game than anything else. "Strategic considerations" is fair game for an encyclopedia. Specifics like "AK plays better against two opponents" is silly, and stating like "better to thin the field" is also just plain wrong because some players are awesome after the flop, while others are quite mediocre... not everybody makes their profit the same way. The article simply should not state what is "best". It can state some things to keep in mind when choosing what to play, when. 2005 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Slang

I'm just writing this to explain why I added a new section about hole card slang. Considering the widespread usage of such slang, it is unbelieveable that there is no mention of it in this article. In no way am I suggesting a list of slang terms, but I believe there should be some mention, particularly the most common ones (A-#, pairs), as well as reasons why they are named that way. If anyone could re-word it or flesh it out it'd be appreciated. Iciac (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning slang terms exist is fine. Having a list of names is not since Wikipedia is WP:NOT a slang or idiom guide, and several Wiki Poker project and afd discussions have gotten rid of the slang previously. It may be a dumb policy, but it is the clear policy that Wikipedia is not a guide to slang. A "fleshed out" section is similarly not good. We are not here to explain slang. 2005 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Wiktionary link up into the section so people can see where to go for examples. 2005 (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Updating the Sklansky Hand Groups section

I noticed in above comments, someone saying that stragegies are POV and shouldn't be included. I'm glad to see they are. I’d argue that POV shows up across Wikipedia, legitimately, when there is a secondary source cited – when it is not the author’s POV. Strategies, theories, famous quotes and the like all seem appropriate to include where they might add value for readers.

I’ve only been playing Texas Hold’em for a few months, lots of hours online and now twice at a real casino, where adrenalin gets pumping, making clear perception and good decision much more difficult (eg, calling a raise without realizing someone may have completed a straight). A week ago, I discovered this page and have found the Sklansky grid & table provided here very useful for helping me quickly understand how to evaluate my starting cards. In a live game, it is difficult to refer to the table, so I wanted to memorize it as quickly as I can, along with the guidelines for how to use it. Toward trying to help myself with that, I created a new graphic (experiencing the satisfaction of making it my first donation to the WikiMedia collection). I’ve updated a few values in the grid to match those listed on the site I referenced for the table.

Feedback would be appreciated, I want to keep improving! I'm still not a regular Wikipedia editor, even though I've been teaching students how to edit Wikipedia for their first time as part of their research papers.

If any of the values need to be changed, please let me know (with a citation) and I can make the modifications and repost it. Or you can! ...if the image editing isn’t too tedious. I made it in Excel, then grabbed a screenshot. The font for the group numbers is Calibri 11. DrMel (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

EV

Could someone explain what EV means in the chart please.

Quote Statistics based on real play Statistics based on real play with their associated actual value in real bets.[5] Tier Hands EV 1 AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs 2.32 - 0.78 2 AQs, TT, AK, AJs, KQs, 99 0.59 - 0.38 There are no units given is this a percentage or # out of 1,000 hands It seems like a pair of aces has better odds than this.

Odds of winning

The odds of being dealt or having a certain starting hand needs to be matched with the odds of winning with that hand after the river. ie. another table is needed showing the odds of winning vs number of players who stay to the river.

"Seven Two" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Seven Two and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 15 § Seven Two until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bassie f (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)