I was reading "Play Poker Like the Pros" by Phil Hellmuth and in it he recommended newbies to play 15 hands to "get their feet wet". The 15 hands are the 13 pocket pairs, AK and AQ.

My question is: Is it possible to make any profit at all with just playing these 13 hands?

Out of curiosity, I tried out playing just 15 hands and found it to be quite a painful experience! Right now I have been dealt 60 hands and only played like 5. Is playing this tight even viable? How can any newbie expect to not get "blinded to death" following his advice?

You will play approx 1 hand in 12 with this preflop system. Not read the book so unsure of the context.
It is possible that a newbie would lose less this way than he would playing more hands, getting used to the game mechanics cheaply. I assume that's what Phil meant by getting your feet wet.
The book did not get much credit. I own too many poker books but let this one pass me by.

Honestly, I'd probably dump pocket 22-55 and add in AJ and KQ. Then again, I don't have eleven bracelets.

The idea from my understanding is that these hands are not meant to be big money makers but simply to get you used to the game. Also by playing those hands you are more likely to win when you do flop a hand. And most importantly I think it teaches paitence. The best advice I ever got was to fold if you don't have a good hand. Sounds simple but for many beginners (myself included) it teaches you to pick your spots. and not go splashing around in pots hoping your 6 kicker holds up.

The hands are simply a way of instilling the fundamentals of patience and solid play. When players first start playing the game the thing that really gets them in trouble is hand selection. That is why Phil took this approach.

Yeah it's good that it will teach patience. However, it is definitely not a definitive (there is no definitive) list of hands to play preflop. The advantage is that the beginner will not get into marginal situations with hands w/ speculative hands like suited connectors or top pair bad kicker. The disadvantage is that advocating ALL pairs isn't the best idea either because most people, even experienced players, tend to misplay or get into tough situations with lower pocket pairs such as 88 or 66. However, if these hands are used only for sets, you shouldn't get into much trouble. The downside is that any decent player will notice exactly how you play and exploit you to no end. The upshot is that most online players are fish.

Phil recommends 15 hands, a site that I went to (forgot name) recommends 19 hands. I tried these and realized that I have to wait EXTREMELY long between hands, even with two tables open. The blinds are costing me a lot of money too from all the folding. For every 100 hands dealt I get to play only like 5-6 of them.

Should I continue to learn NLHE this way?? (supertight) I am spending most of my time folding and waiting...is it a waste of time?

Question: How many hands do people usually play anyway?

Phils limit advice is dubious ... but as a NL beginner just playing the 15 hands is not unheard of

And if you play the micros it will show a profit !!

omg I forgot about this! Linky handy?

The only way to have successful longterm profit is to play agressive. You can play aggressive with these cards, but its so hard to play like that because if you opponents have any inkling of talent, they will notice that you've played 6 hands out of 100. THey will know that when you play, you're packing heat. THey will fold to you preflop.

Being a tight aggressive player is where its at. Pick your cards correctly, hit the flop or drop the cards. I know there are a lot of books out there that advocate not playing Ax suited. But I will only play this hand in late position, if everyone has limped in. Its a very very deceiving hand that will pay off dividends.

Look at it this way. Say you only play Ax suited only when you limp in (1 big blind). Say you're playing the $1/$2 nl game. You limp in for $2 and you dont get anything 10 times in a row you play this hand. You lost $20 just in blinds. And lets say on the 11th time you flop the nut flush, and slow play it and keep people in the hand. You could easily rake in like $40 and upwards in a pot.

What I'm getting at, is there are lots of hands to play other than the ones Phil advises beginners to play. I know he does it so it teaches patience and shows noobs how to pick up the game. I'm just trying to show you that there are many hands that you play situationally. I think that may be too advanced at this stage for you, I'm just trying to open you up to that idea.

You might consider getting Phil Gordon's "Little Green Book" since I feel he gives a very good explanation of basic NLHE play. With all the different situations explained, a decent amount of information on various odds and even a very small selection of starting hands charts, it sure makes a nice basis around which to build your game.

EDIT - I only mention it as, while still aimed at beginners, it is rather more comprehensive than Hellmuth's effort.

I think we are confused about the intent of Phil Hellmuth's strategy.

He's trying to get beginners accustomed to NLHE, and teaching them tight play. I'm not sure if the goal is to become a profitable player only using these hands. They're just a starting point. While you're waiting, you can see how the others are playing their hands. You can see how your folded hand would do after the flop...etc. This is a pretty contrived example, but think of it like the beginning player is a 1st grader. You can't expect to write at a 10th level right away. You need to work you way up.

Phil's advice is very viable and profitable for low limit NLHE games. It is the tight, straight forward poker that makes money at the lower limits where most beginners start their poker career.

I think this is meant for full tables, not 6 max or shorter

my thought
that is just less than ten % of all hands. I know people in my db with a VPIP of less than 10%. They don't lose a lot, but they don't make a lot either.

QFT
nfd come in too obv

All pocket pairs, AK and AK are 8.3% of all starting hands.

At full ring NLHE, you can play that tight and make some money as long as you play reasonably well when you do play.

There are some more hands in various situations that you can and should play, but to start out that list is probably fine. For example, there are plenty of profitable opportunities, especially in late position, to play any suited ace, suited connectors and suited semi-connectors.

Quoting for truth.

The hardest thing for a beginner is to learn to play tight -- not just to play more hands because it would be fun, because you can talk yourself into thinking it would be profitable, or what have you. The easiest way to learn this discipline is to stick to a very tight, mechanical approach until it's second nature. Then you can loosen up and try playing more.

Also, I think playing only pairs could be profitable. Much of your profit against bad players in NLHE comes from set-mining, so you may as well learn to do it.

My only objection is, you shouldn't play 22 with a short stack for a raise, and beginners should be learning NLHE with short stacks in my opinion and that of some experts.

I have his smaller Holdem book that was taken from that book you mentioned. I just barely played my first game on Christmas. Lost all Christmas. However SINCE then (the 26th) I've been winning consistently. Still a newbie but in the book I have he mentions just 10 hands. I have playing those & winning. Now I'm starting to understand a bit more like about straights, flushes, suited connectors etc but yes the Top 10 got my feet wet. What blew me away was he was right just using those 10 I was able to actually win games. I play freeroll sng's online.
That is just a starting point. I'm playing quite a bit & reading voraciously. Currently devouring HoH Vl. 1.

Just read some of the other responses. Yes, I agree it's like 1st grade. But then that's where I'm currently at so it's cool & I'm learning.

First off please understand that this book was targeted for beginer LIMIT players, though he has a NL chapter in it. For complete beginers he suggests that a system playing AA-77 and AK/AQ and pumping as much money into the pot as you can unless there is an obvious reason not to is a good system for making money when you first start. I disagree with alot of this theory but the main point you should be taking from that section of the book is that a big part of the edge you will gain over opponents is a better starting hand selection than them.

Well, the book is all over the map. But honestly when I first read thread, I figured we must be talking about a revision to Hellmuth's book. If we're discussing his limit advice, then some of it's terrible -- in a small pot you should throw 77 or 88 away when you think it's beat, period.

But that doesn't include 22-66, so I have no idea what the OP is about.

I personally play $.01/$.02 on stars, and that is my exact range. the only exceptions I make are limping with Axs and Kxs from the SB when I'm getting better than 7:1 on my money. currently I'm running at 4.8ptbb's/100 over 9k hands - it would be more, but some of the beats i've taken are absolutely mindblowing. Over that 9K sample I'm my stats are 8.7/5.5/2.5.

Also, you are going to kill yourself playing one table. play AT LEAST 10. I play 15 right now and I find that I have a lot of dead time... just staring at my monitor doing nothing. You will get nowhere playing 1 table.

TO answer you question in one word: YES

Hmmmm...really? Do you have more than 1 table opened? Doesn't the blinds whittle away profits?

Wow 15 tables? Yeah, one of the major problem I have is staring at my monitor doing nothing! I tried it for like 5 hours and only got to play like 6 hands. Talk about tight!

I wonder if I should try again with 10 tables...

My experience from playing 10+ hands is that I get to play like 6 times in 5 hours and pay a lot in blinds. Those that I do get to play had to be folded or got beat and so those 5 hours were largely wasted.

The positive experiences that you guys had with playing so little hands made me wonder if I should try this again.

If I recall correctly, the point of his recommendation was to minimize losses while getting started not to win big. I can't quote it since I'm too lazy to dig it out but I recall the point being made sort of a disclaimer. I think he also mentions that it would be successful online at low limits. I watched him play on UB in a low stakes limit game. Only premium stuff and he tripled up in about 2 hours. Small ball IMO. Couple pros and the rest seemed to be just excited to play with him-lots of chat. He also was pretty pleasant as opposed to his TV persona for what it's worth. I hated his book anyway. Many better options IMO. The first positive step I took in my game was to get my VPIP down from 30+ to -20. So tight is right as he says in his book at least for donks like me.

Mark