If all things were equal at the poker table, you'd win, roughly, your share of hands: that is, around one-tenth of hands played if it's a regular 10-seat table. Assuming, for the moment, that nobody folds before showdown.
But nothing is ever equal at the poker table. You and the other players have different strengths; you sit in positions which drastically change your advantages; and you can choose to fold anytime it's your turn, changing the number of competitors. Your greatest point of control is whether to take part or not in that particular hand.
All players cut themselves out of the running by folding some of the time, because it's perfectly obvious that just showing up to play isn't a winning strategy. Too many of us, however, don't fold often enough -- as if relying on others to fold and get out of our way. I don't think it's simply an urge to do something rather than nothing; some excellent poker players believe there's an ingrained impulse to act once we've been dealt a hand. But I think it's a superstition. A feeling, a belief that we would win if others just cooperate a little. We regard folding as giving in, as failure. Deep down, we don't really, really believe that we should ever fold.
It's a superstition you have to reject. Even if we were sitting at the imaginary equal-chance table above, never folding is still not good strategy, is it? You are still losing far more often than you win.
You need to fold more often than other people, generally. Those selected hands you play you choose because you have a strong starting hand. This is in direct opposition to what you may feel at the poker table, though.
You may find your justification for staying in with those cards was thin, or just plain false. Setting rules for yourself is often useful in combating the impulse to call to stay in, and hence the popularity of starting hand charts. You'll adjust that group of hands you decide to stay in with according to your position, the level you're playing, and your impressions of the other players.
You can see, from the percentage of the times they win, which are always fairly good Holdem hands before the flop although they are not pairs: AK, AQ, AJ; KQ, KJ.
But just because your starting hand is a lot better than the other ones you've been getting all session -- like getting dealt QT after stuff like 89 offsuit and 72 off for hours -- that doesn't make this hand a strong hand. This is especially true if it hasn't been a particularly loose table. Evaluating your hand does NOT mean comparing it to your previous hands.
But nothing is ever equal at the poker table. You and the other players have different strengths; you sit in positions which drastically change your advantages; and you can choose to fold anytime it's your turn, changing the number of competitors. Your greatest point of control is whether to take part or not in that particular hand.
All players cut themselves out of the running by folding some of the time, because it's perfectly obvious that just showing up to play isn't a winning strategy. Too many of us, however, don't fold often enough -- as if relying on others to fold and get out of our way. I don't think it's simply an urge to do something rather than nothing; some excellent poker players believe there's an ingrained impulse to act once we've been dealt a hand. But I think it's a superstition. A feeling, a belief that we would win if others just cooperate a little. We regard folding as giving in, as failure. Deep down, we don't really, really believe that we should ever fold.
It's a superstition you have to reject. Even if we were sitting at the imaginary equal-chance table above, never folding is still not good strategy, is it? You are still losing far more often than you win.
You need to fold more often than other people, generally. Those selected hands you play you choose because you have a strong starting hand. This is in direct opposition to what you may feel at the poker table, though.
You may find your justification for staying in with those cards was thin, or just plain false. Setting rules for yourself is often useful in combating the impulse to call to stay in, and hence the popularity of starting hand charts. You'll adjust that group of hands you decide to stay in with according to your position, the level you're playing, and your impressions of the other players.
You can see, from the percentage of the times they win, which are always fairly good Holdem hands before the flop although they are not pairs: AK, AQ, AJ; KQ, KJ.
But just because your starting hand is a lot better than the other ones you've been getting all session -- like getting dealt QT after stuff like 89 offsuit and 72 off for hours -- that doesn't make this hand a strong hand. This is especially true if it hasn't been a particularly loose table. Evaluating your hand does NOT mean comparing it to your previous hands.