Starting Hands for NO Limit

[Doogiedc]

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?

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[Fnord]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[ilikeaces86]

TPTK is terrible on any stakes on PP with the new stacks.

[ChezJ]

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]

[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.

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

[Laeelin]

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]

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.