One of the rare quality articles on No-Limit strategy.
Interesting contrasts to this site. The style they advocate is closer to the No Limit section of Super System.
http://www.winningonlinepoker.com/nolimit.htm
Printable View
One of the rare quality articles on No-Limit strategy.
Interesting contrasts to this site. The style they advocate is closer to the No Limit section of Super System.
http://www.winningonlinepoker.com/nolimit.htm
Good article.
I have had my nose stuck in HEPFAP for the past couple weeks and never really bothered to notice the distinction between limit and no-limit strategies. I printed out all of Tyson's articles as well as the contributed articles from yourself and Eric last night and read them at home.
In particular what caught my eye was the Ax in hand article and the points were reiterated in the article you posted.
I played was in the money on 3 out of 4 SNGs last nite after reading over the articles and checking how hands play differently than what Sklansky proposes.
I'm gonna keep building my roll in SNG and hopefully move back to $25NL next month.
As always, excellent stuff here. Thanks!
Read that article. It is interesting suggesting a fold with AJo and KJo in an unraised pot. I understand what they're saying, laydown a hand that has the ability to win you a small pot but lose you a huge pot.
Do you guys agree? I always play AJo or KJo in an unraised pot, and even look to raise with with AJo if the waters seem safe. Perhaps this is not the best way to play this?
I guess the other factor is - can you laydown your top pair strong kicker? Will you, in fact, lose a huge pot in the scenarios suggested with AJo, KJo, AQ, and KQ?
The article also likes Axs hands from all positions in an unraised pot. I've vacilated between playing these hands from any position in an unraised pot to just playing these hands in mid-late position (which is how I've currently been playing them).
I'd like to here your thoughts, thanks!
It depends on how deep the money is. The taller my stack is the more I avoid hands like KJ and QJ and the more careful I get with AQ. I recently lost 2 big hands with it (one for $50) and took it as a lesson learned. Although, oddly enough I haven't had problems with KQ. It also depend on what people are playing. If other players are calling pre-flop raises with hands like KJ and QJ, then by all means raise up AJ!
Pyramid of domination:
Personally, I think the biggest flaws in your pre-flop articles are advocating micro-raises (I fail to see the point), undervaluing tight and semi-tight suited connectors in late position and any pocket pair in any position for up to 5-10% of the smaller stack.Code:AK
AQ KQ
AJ KJ QJ
Hmm... yeah I should review those essays, my strategy has been evolving.
The micro-raises... I don't even remember where I do that - I don't use min. raises, $1.50 will be the smallest raise these days (blind + $1.00 raise) - they are like a straight up value bet.
The suited connectors I do play in late, just haven't documented that final Grouping of late position hands. I usually do not play the semi-connected hands or the low suited-connectors in late, but that all depends on the amount of limpers in the pot - the more, the looser I go.
Pocket pairs are fun. I call small raises automatically - $1.00-$1.50 (blind + $.50-$1.00), but not automatically up to 10% (ie $2.50). Then I use my better judgment - opponent style, number of opponents, etc.
I need to review those pre-flop essays... sounds like my strategies have shifted since I first drafted those...
That's the cool thing about holdem, you can never stop improving your game.
I think you got suited connectors and semi-connectors wrong.
The problem with following lots of limpers with them is if you have 4c 5c and the board comes:
Qs 5d 5h
You may very well the second best hand if there is a lot of junk being played! Also, consider that newbies love to slow play trips and more seasoned players like steal when the board shows a pair, so being on the button doesn't help as much here. Hence I like this board better on a table with a few tight players.
Also, on the issue of tight vs semi-tight. A tight connector will flop a straight or inside straight draw more often. However if you flop two pair very often there will be a possible straight on the board. Also if you flop a straight there will often be another (better) straight possible and the board will often look like a scary straight board. Semi-tight connectors flop a safer 2 pair and a more deceptive straight at the cost of flopping a straight or inside straight draw less often. I need to run numbers, but for now I value each equally if I think I got good implied odds on my 1-2x BB (nice and tall stacks limping in with me.)
That's interesting. When I see a lot of limpers in a pot, I immediately think implied odds, at which point I loosen some of my late position hands,
looking for the right flop and the big payday.
As long as there is a good chance someone is around to payoff your monster...Quote:
Originally Posted by ttanaka
I guess the point I tried to make was.... You got a 7 and a 5 of spades on the button. Which table would you rather be at?
Table 1: (tight passive)
UTG tried to limp-raise with pocket rockets (no one bit yet)
A couple random pocket pairs
A dominated hand or two like AJ, KTs, etc looking for a cheap flop.
Table 2: (loose aggressive)
Half the table filled with players that will play and 2 cards with pips and bet second pair.
IMHO, I'd rather be at table 1 in that particular situation. My trips, bottom two pair or non-nut flush is a safer hand to go nuclear with and I got a better shot of stealing the pot with on a draw (including any pair), well... ok maybe if the UTG Aces weren't there...