NL starting hands v L

[BenRM]

I read a Sklansky book in which he grades groups of starting hands. But he says they're specific to limit hold'em, and that the table would look very different for No Limit. Could anybody explain why? I can understand how they'd look different, say, playing 8 handed or four handed or HU. But surely the odds of making a hand are the same L or NL? I know I'm missing something here, but I can't work out what it is. All help appreciated!

[EricE]

What you are missing is the implied odds difference and the difference in how often you have drawing odds.
Implied odds are higher with NL.
Drawing odds are usually NOT there with NL and often there with Limit.

These things change the starting hands quite a bit. Slansky puts a lot of weight into suitedness of his starting hands. This would be less important in a NL game where the odds to draw to the flush are very often not there. [depends on the aggressiveness of the game you are in]. The more aggressive a NL game gets the less important your drawing hands are and the more important your high card hands are.

[DaNutsInYoEye]

What you are missing is the implied odds difference and the difference in how often you have drawing odds.
Implied odds are higher with NL.
Drawing odds are usually NOT there with NL and often there with Limit.

These things change the starting hands quite a bit. Slansky puts a lot of weight into suitedness of his starting hands. This would be less important in a NL game where the odds to draw to the flush are very often not there. [depends on the aggressiveness of the game you are in]. The more aggressive a NL game gets the less important your drawing hands are and the more important your high card hands are.

Good response.

[BenRM]

These things change the starting hands quite a bit. Slansky puts a lot of weight into suitedness of his starting hands. This would be less important in a NL game where the odds to draw to the flush are very often not there. [depends on the aggressiveness of the game you are in]. The more aggressive a NL game gets the less important your drawing hands are and the more important your high card hands are.

Thanks, EricE. It's times like this I realise how much I have to learn. So, am I right that what you're saying is that in NL it could potentially cost you so much to draw to, say, a flush that it's frequently not worth it, and so grading your starting hands to take into account a potential flush is not so important as aiming for a high pair, two pairs, threes... ?

[EricE]

Thanks, EricE. It's times like this I realise how much I have to learn. So, am I right that what you're saying is that in NL it could potentially cost you so much to draw to, say, a flush that it's frequently not worth it, and so grading your starting hands to take into account a potential flush is not so important as aiming for a high pair, two pairs, threes... ?

Don't worry that you have a lot to learn. Poker is learned in layers. Just continue to try and learn because as you penetrate one layer the next reveals itself. If you stop trying to learn then once you penetrate a layer you won’t see the next beyond.

Yes, you stated it nicely. If your NL game is aggressive enough such that the bets are usually ½ pot or more then you will not have the odds to draw to the flush. In such cases you *might* consider the implied odds such that you can call until you hit your flush and then raise the rest of your stack. Getting paid a whole stack on your hit flushes might be sufficient to cover the expense of missing the times you drew to a flush and missed. The problem with that theory is that not everyone is willing to pay you off when you hit your flush. In fact, few will be. A few bad reads and you are in the hole for your flush draws making them unprofitable. So in NL you have to be VERY choosy about what flushes to draw to and when to give it up. (paying to much to draw or not high enough chance you will get paid if you do hit) This is where NL differs from Limit.

Implied odds also makes the bottom PP play differently. Sklansky uses position to determine which PPs to play. In NL it can be profitable to play any PP (even duces) from any position (even to small PF raises) provided you drop them on the flop if you don’t set.

[Pelion]

I think another big difference is that in Limit it isnt too disasterous if you make a second best hand. Certainly alot of hands that you beat will call you down alot of the time.
But in No-limit if you make a King high flush at the same time someone makes an A high flush then you lose your whole stack.
e.g. Limit - KJ suited has lots of ways to win. It can make 2 high pairs, a high straight or a high flush or if you are really lucky a straight-flush.
It is a monster.

No-Limit - If you arent careful KJs can win you small pots but lose big ones. It can get you into a lot of trouble. If the flop comes Jh6h2d you could be up against AJ and hes raising too much to let you draw to the flush. If on the other hand the best hand is 68x then you bet it and everyone folds.
KJs sucks

[BenRM]

Thanks everyone. It's really appreciated.

Is there a favourite book you'd recommend to help make that adjustment from L to NL? Something that would build on the Sklansky book (which I definitely feel helped my limit play)?

[Pelion]

I really like Sklanskys Tournament Play for advanced poker players.

Its obviously based mostly around tournaments but alot of it helps cash games. So far i have only read this and theory of poker though so i cant really compare with other books.

[EricE]

I have yet to read a NL book so I can’t advise. (Super system II is on my Xmas list though).
I have read TOP, Holdem for advanced players (sklansky), SSH, and Gary Carsons holdem book (I just finished it).
They are all good in their own way and add to your poker knowledge. One thing I really liked about Gary Carsons book is that it teaches you to look at the game from many different perspectives. This gives you a foundation for adjusting your play to the table conditions. It’s a limit book but has few examples so almost all of it applies to NL as well.

[BenRM]

Thanks again.

This is a great forum. It's really helping me focus on what exactly I need to work on. Right now, I think it's those implied odds and pot odds for my mathematical game. And it's getting more aggressive in my mental game. I have a feeling my play is probably tight-passive, and that's going to cost me more playing NL than playing L. I'm hoping the maths will give me the confidence to play more aggressive.