Hey everyone,
It's been a while...

I've been trying to compose a complete hand ranking (it's actually not really complete since I stopped at 50%). I'll add some %-tresholds (5%, 10%, 15%, etc.).
The idea behind making a ranking is to subdivide them into different classes. After this I based my PF-ranges on those classes, making them easier to remember and more flexible.
Composing this ranking really made me think of what kind of hands I like to play; as you can see it's a pretty straightforward value-based ranking with a small preference for SC's (65s+ is <25%).

What do you guys think?
AA
KK
AKs
AKo
QQ
AQs
JJ
TT
AJs
AQo => 5%
99
88
AJo
KQs
ATs
77
KQo
KJs
ATo
A9s => 10%
A9o
66
A8s
A8o
A5s
KJo
KTs
QJs
A4s => 15%
K9s
QJo
QTs
A3s
55
KTo
JTs
JTo
QTo
A2s => 20%
T9s
98s
87s => 25%
76s
65s
K8s
K9o
A7s
A6s
K7s
A5o
A4o
A3o => 30%
Q9s
K6s
K5s
44
J9s
A2o => 33%
A7o
54s
T8s
Q8s => 35%
K4s
J8s
97s
33
22
K3s
Q7s
K2s
86s
Q9o => 40%
J9o
Q6s
K8o
A6o
K7o
Q5s
J7s
Q8o
Q4s
K6o
Q3s
K5o
Q2s
T9o
T7s
J8o
K4o
75s
Q7o
Q6o
J6s
J5s
K3o => 50%

Greetings,
Teski

Meaningless as some hands will play better than others dependent on game state

Yeah this is basically useless because this list changes every hand past the 5% or so. If I want to 4bet I prefer A5s but if I'm calling a raise in the BB I want JTs. By the way you have JTs and JTo right next to each other which is...

Hand strength is situational. As Kelvis mentions, calling ranges are different to opening ranges, but even stack size and position plays a role for the opener. e.g. If I have 100bb UTG, I quite like JTs, but if I've only got 3bb (in a tournament situation) then A6o suddenly feels like the nuts.

FWIW, QQ is a more profitable cashgame hand than AKo for most players, but both hands play similarly and are rarely folded pre-flop, so it's not even worth ranking them.

You can also use the Pokerstove/Equilab range slider to get a ranking fairly similar to the one you've provided. Based on being up against 3 random hands, J4s is better than K4o, but I'd sooner open 54s otb, although it's not ranked in the Equilab top 50%. (Nor is 22, fwiw).

P.S. I just noticed another outlier in your list. J9s only just makes the top 33%, but it's arguably a profitable open UTG in 6-max (as part of an 18% range).

Okay, thank you for the constructive critique! I will certainly use it in my further explorations in finding a PF-system that works for me.

You'll hear from me again.

+ I'll give an example of how I divided the ranking into different classes and how I'd use it. Just to make it more understandable what my actual goal is.

eg. Class 1 = AA, KK, AKs, AKo, QQ; Class 2 = AQs, JJ, TT, AJs, AQo

- I'm facing a bet from MP1 (Full Ring) against a player with my own opening range (these are the only factors I take into account for this exercise)

- My 3bet-range vs. MP1 + calling-range vs. MP1 = Class 1 + 2 (this is 5%, where villain's opening range is 10%)
- My 3bet-range = Top Class 1 + Bottom Class 2 (AA, KK, AKs, TT, AJs, AQo)
- My calling-range = Bottom Class 1 + Top Class 2 (AKo, QQ, AQs, JJ)

I do this for every bet I'm facing.
eg. 3bet-range + calling-range vs. HJ = Class 1 + 2 + 3a
=> 3bet range = Class 1 + Bottom Class 3a
calling-range = Class 2 + Top Class 3a

This is so much more complicated than it has to be and still requires you to memorize ranges. This will never work because like I said the order in which hands are placed constantly shift around every situation based on equity, equity realization and playability. Besides that calling and 3bet ranges from most position are pretty small and really easy to remember if that is what you're after.

Just focus on a program like equilab to visualize ranges and look at some of the preset ranges to give you an idea. Then create your own ranges based around that. This is not productive.

Yeah, it's this weird feeling of catharsis I get when I develop an utterly over-complex system that is completely useless in practice. It's probably because I'm not playing for a while now and only spending my 'poker-time' into thinking about the game.
But, you know, it's fun... (haha)

My brain works very visually so your advice about visualizing ranges is indeed not a bad idea. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it.

Teski