Your most profitable hand?

Just out of interest (no scientific reason) I'd love to hear what, according to PT3 or whateber tracking software you use, is your most profitable starting hand. If you can post how many hands this is tracked over that'd be great..cheers.

I'll start though bear in mind I have only just started playing so have a miniscule sample:

Ac5c - 3,000 hands

AA of course about 8.5k hands here.

It will be AA for anyone with a decent sample size and it's not even close.

Yeah, understood. AA is a loser for me at the moment but that's down to my sample size.

Top 5 in BB/hand over 22K hands

AA 3.21
QQ 2.59
AQs 2.33
AKo 2.24
KK 1.73

Poor King, only fares better when with an Ace.

Unlike his wife, when frolicking alone does better than him.

Thanks for that! Interesting that KK is fifth best and AKo is above AKs and yet both are below AQs!

There are two kinds of poker players in the world. Those who know AA is their best hand, and superstitious fools I want to play against every day for the rest of my life.

Last time I ran the numbers, AA is good for 6.5 big blinds (notbets) per hand for me. KK is second at 4 and change. Those are tourney numbers, though, so may be low because it includes high blind play.

RF

My last database I kept, over 15k hands my top winners ($/hand) were aa, kk, aks, qq, tt, ako. Obviously TT > JJ because JJ is unplayable...not because of sample size.

Superstitous fools, eh? Wrong game.

I don't have poker software but i can tell i get most profit off suited connectors as they trap the hands you gentlemen are speaking of such as rockets or cowboys. Just another look on things.

only just started cash, but its jj for me:
https://www.pokertableratings.com/ha...946/3576554032

AA

Them or me? ;-)

Seriously, though, I've played with people who swear by JT. Always play it, they say. Any position, any action. I guess the logic is that a board that looks great for tight players can give them a straight and a really big pot. Another guy swore by 22. He'd always raise or reraise all in with it, and claimed he never lost with it. Yet another swore by 8. Not 88, just 8. Thought it was lucky.

RF

An update on everyone's favorite hand - I just had AA cracked 8 out of the last 10 times I played them - played them right - raised between 5 - 10 bb, and still got called with cracp like 4 -7, flopped straights, 2 pair, etc....I'm, really starting to think it's the most over rated hand in poker

To anyone claiming anything other than AA over a significant sample, go buy yourself some software because you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

AA losing 50% of the time is just dumb. Across my entire 300K+ hand db AA wins over 90% of the time. The graph below shows only hands where I had AA. In the thread I originally posted this pic in, several people had higher BB/100 winrates with AA so I'm not even playing it that great.

I was thinking that another way of calculating profit of a hand would be to look at the money made wit that hand vs. the money lost against that hand. This is since everybody gets dealt the same hands in the long run.

The only problem is that you can't know all the times you lost against the hand, but maybe you could compare showdown winnings of the two sides to get an idea?

Lmao this thread is golden, especially this guy:

and to a lesser extent:

You can't argue with WV's stats. I win 94.1% of the time with them playing cash, and make twice more than my next profitable hand KK. That's the end of it.

for some strange reason, ive liked AQo a lot over time.

since i have such fond memories, it must mean ive won a lot with it!

This would actually be interesting (it's what Tommy Angelo refers to as "reciprocal analysis") unfortunately it's not really possible and as far as I know PT3 doesn't allow you to filter based on villain's hole cards. Based on this type of analysis AA would almost certainly NOT be the most profitable, or more specifically it would be the most similarly profitable for everyone.

If you lose more with AA, your obviously doing something wrong.

One major thing could be like slowplaying the hand.. waiting till the river till you go crazy.. just to lose to someone with 2 pair.. trips.. straight.. flush.. ect.

You've got to make a decent raise pre-flop ALWAYS.

I've NEVER slow played AA in my life - and I laugh at people that do - b/c all you are doing is slow playing ONE PAIR. The biggest problem I have with AA is that it's an impossible hand to lay down - even after the flop (typically, if I'm not all in pre-flop with them, I'll most likely be all in on the flop). YES, I have made a lot of money off of them - but from over a million hands I've played - both online and live - I have seen them cracked well above the supposed 80/20 percentage rate they are 1 on 1 - seems a lot closer to 65/35.

I hear that a lot. Yes, it's just "one pair", but the PF equity of that one pair is massive. You can just go all in every time and it's a safe option, but a net losing one because you're not going to get the callers who pay you a bit more when they pair their K, Q, or think their pocket 10s might be good. Maybe not in microlimits. There might be enough people there who will call you down often enough to net a profit over just playing the hand out. ;-) I hear you about slow playing it. I won't say I never do it, but it's always a calculated risk. Obviously, if you've played a million hands you know all this better than I do (I'd guess I'm pushing 200,000), so I'm saying all this for the sake of conversation, not to educate -you- in particular.

On a million hands you've got to be converging to the average. I don't have hard data (yet), but wouldn't be too shocked if the hands that play with your AA when you go all in on the flop are only ones that have you beat or draws with a ~33% chance to beat you. The real return is definitely influenced by selection bias. 65/35 at showdown doesn't seem implausible.

RF

Over about 73,000 hands, in BB/hand:

AA 6.90
KK 5.50
QQ 4.96
TT 2.68
JJ 2.39