|
Doogiedc
|
03-22-2005, 04:37 AM
Post subject: Starting Hands for NO Limit
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4
|
|
I've been reading Sklansky's book on LIMIT poker, and I have to agree, that playing only the very BEST hands is going to be profitable in the long term.
On the other hand, NO Limit poker is a totally different game. The chances of getting a big payoff would seem to outweigh the possibility of draining your money by playing "unprofitable" hands (in Sklansky's opinion).
I think that you can probably at least CALL the top 40 poker hands for one bet. I suppose position also plays an important role in determining what to call.
It would seem that if you limit yourself to the top 40 hands, that's going to allow you to see 20% of the hands to the flop.
The point I'm trying to make here is that it would seem you can risk to see more hands on the probability that you will earn more money from winning a pot. In other words, you're not going to be nickel-and-dimed to death.
Are there any changes to be made to starting hand strategies for NO-limit?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
DoGGz
|
|
|
|
in no limit, it's more important to play hands that can turn into monsters. TPTK is great in limit, but only can play so far in nolimit. Sets Flushes and Straights are the hands you want to hunt for (obviously FH/AA/KK...)
Hands you can win 100-200 BB in one hand is where you will get your payoff
|
|
|
|
Hubris1
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 163
|
|
Umm, TPTK is ten times the hand in no limit as it is in limit. In limit people can suck you out on the OESD or flush draws because you can't blow away their pot odds. In no limit you can bet half the pot or the pot.
|
|
|
|
JeffreyGB
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Jenks, OK
Posts: 3,477
|
|
Big differences, due to the huge potential payout when moderate hands become monsters - specifically this refers to pocket pairs. In limit, low pocket pairs are usually folded to a pf raise unless there's a ton of people in the pot. In NL, you want to stay in if the raise was less than 1/10 of your stack (and 1/10 of your opp's stack) since you could double-up when the set comes and it will come about 12% of the time.
Other changes as mentioned on the site can be seen in a chart I put together...though it's just a starting understanding: http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~jeff...ake/poker.html
Note: limit's on top. Scroll down to see the NL table.
|
|
|
|
jmontis
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,296
|
|
yea, for example .25/.50 cash game
if you call 10 $2 raises with 4,4 and miss the set 9 times
thats an $18 net loss, not including the blinds
but if you hit a set on a flop like AK4,... you could make 3-4 times what you lost..
that's no limit.
|
|
take your ego out of the equation and judge the situation dispassionately
|
|
Fnord
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck
Posts: 19,333
|
|
Full ring any position:
AA-22, AK
Marginal stuff:
AQ
AQs, AJs, ATs, KQs, KJs, KTs, QJs, QTs, JTs
Play s00ted shit on the button.
Play lots of crap on a late position steal.
Complete your SB with just about any 2.
|
|
|
|
Fnord
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck
Posts: 19,333
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hubris1
Umm, TPTK is ten times the hand in no limit as it is in limit.
|
Not when the money is deep and the players have a clue.
|
|
|
|
Hubris1
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 163
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fnord
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hubris1
Umm, TPTK is ten times the hand in no limit as it is in limit.
|
Not when the money is deep and the players have a clue. |
The simple fact is, you cannot take away odds in limit comparing equal caliber players TPTK is always a better hand in no limit than limit.
|
|
|
|
Cocco_Bill
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,254
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hubris1
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fnord
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hubris1
Umm, TPTK is ten times the hand in no limit as it is in limit.
|
Not when the money is deep and the players have a clue. |
The simple fact is, you cannot take away odds in limit comparing equal caliber players TPTK is always a better hand in no limit than limit. |
I am always on the lookout for fish who will pay off their whole stack on TPTK. Its more important to know when to lay it down in NL than Limit, or at least your mistakes will be more costly.
|
|
|
|
FlyingSaucy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Watching the kids
Posts: 1,603
|
|
I dunno. TPTK in the right conditions can be worth "over" playing... say, if you've got a bunch of loose players or are late in a sng. Get them MF's to fold their draws.
|
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hubris1
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fnord
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hubris1
Umm, TPTK is ten times the hand in no limit as it is in limit.
|
Not when the money is deep and the players have a clue. |
The simple fact is, you cannot take away odds in limit comparing equal caliber players TPTK is always a better hand in no limit than limit. |
TPTK wins bigger pots in limit, relatively.
TPTK is a small pot hand in NL at stakes beyond .1/.25
-'rilla
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
ilikeaces86
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,141
|
|
TPTK is terrible on any stakes on PP with the new stacks.
|
|
|
|
ChezJ
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 1,456
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by doggz
in no limit, it's more important to play hands that can turn into monsters. TPTK is great in limit, but only can play so far in nolimit. Sets Flushes and Straights are the hands you want to hunt for (obviously FH/AA/KK...)
Hands you can win 100-200 BB in one hand is where you will get your payoff
|
being a limit player, i am totally confused by this thread. i always thought the advantage of playing NL (vs limit) was that you could protect your TPTK's by making it unprofitable for your opponents to draw. i was given to understand that chasing draws in NL was extremely costly and foolhardy. but now, several of you are saying the exact opposite, that it is better to draw to big flushes and straights because the eventual payoff will more than justify the costs.
please explain further, or refer me to some standard material explaining this. thanks.
ChezJ
|
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ChezJ
[being a limit player, i am totally confused by this thread. i always thought the advantage of playing NL (vs limit) was that you could protect your TPTK's by making it unprofitable for your opponents to draw.
|
Yup. The problem is that after the immediate jump from the fishfest of .1/.25, people stop drawing. They convert to weak/tighties and look to play near nut hands. So often times, TPTK will simply win a tiny pot or lose a big one when an opponent makes a set and you over value your hand.
One pair hands have become small pot hands becuase of the 100 BB stacks. Unless people start accepting 10BB raises as the norm, this will remain.
In limit, people do draw against TPTK, so it's not a bad hand to have in big pot.
Quote:
i was given to understand that chasing draws in NL was extremely costly and foolhardy. but now, several of you are saying the exact opposite, that it is better to draw to big flushes and straights because the eventual payoff will more than justify the costs.
please explain further, or refer me to some standard material explaining this. thanks.
ChezJ
|
Implied odds.
I don't draw for flushes becuase they're too transparent and people seem to see flushes first.
But I draw for straights and use flush cards as scare cards.
-'rilla
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
Laeelin
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,137
|
|
Quote:
I don't draw for flushes becuase they're too transparent and people seem to see flushes first.
But I draw for straights and use flush cards as scare cards.
|
Food for thought.
I like that.
|
|
|
|
michael1123
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Rochester Hills, MI
Posts: 1,720
|
|
I do draw for flushes at times, unlike 'Rilla, but I completely agree with him about straight draws being much better (much more disguised) and flush cards being good scare cards.
Straights being disguised are the main reason why I'd rather play a hand like 86o than with K2s anyday, let alone the added bonus of probably not being dominated.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
