Altering Sklansky's Hand Groups for No Limit Hold 'Em

[skelley]

In Sklansky's books Hold 'Em Poker and Hold 'Em Poker For Advanced Players he discusses "Hand Groups" which rank the top 72 starting hands. In Hold 'Em Poker on page 19 he says:

"3. The list would have to be substantially altered for no limit games."

I am greatly wondering how the list would change for no limit? I primarily play tournaments and $50 buy in NL games so the insight would be very helpful to me.

Thanks for any thoughts!

[zephyr]

For no limit,

Pairs go up in value.
Suited Aces go up in value.
Big unsuited cards go down in value.

Of course starting hand selection differs greatly from game to game. The structure, especially how deep the money is, and what position you are in, are of primary importance when deciding on starting hand value.

Only my opinion,

Zephyr

[JohnnyBlazini]

I believe that one of the main difference is that the value of having the "nuts" goes up substantially in no-limit. Consequently, hands like Ax suited are a lot stronger than Kx suited. Pocket pairs also go up in value since making a set is a strong way to double up... Btw, if AA goes up, something must go down...

I'de love to see a "slansky on no-limit." It seems that twoplustwo has an averse attitude towards the skills required in playing no-limit... It does seem to be a harder game to analyse in such a scientific-mathematical way as everyone on twoplustwo is used to... This should be an interesting thread...

[JohnnyBlazini]

Totally stole my thunder...Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[zephyr]

Gotta learn to type faster I guess /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Consequently, hands like Ax suited are a lot stronger than Kx suited.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely untrue for the games the poster is asking about. Ax is better because of the chances of pairing the ace and winning a small pot. There have to be extremely deep stacks before you start saying Kx is worse because you might lose to the nut flush.

Justin A

[Justin A]

For the games you're talking about, the stacks are not deep enough to make suited Ax all that valuable.

The best hands are all the pocket pairs, and the smaller ones you need to get in cheaply.

In no limit most of your profit comes post flop except for the big pairs, so it's not as important to raise with hands like AQs (not saying you shouldn't).

Big unsuited cards are trouble hands and should almost never be played for a raise (except AK).

Small suited connectors and the like are only good in late position if you can get in very cheaply. They become more valuable when stacks get deeper. Straights get paid off more easily than flushes.

Position is very very important in no limit.

Justin A

[Erik W]

Everybody says Ax is better in NL. My experience and thought about it is that it is worse.

Since you all say it is better I believe it but please convince why my reasoning is wrong.

If I flop a nonraised pot with for example A5 suited.
I am in a good position.
4 people in the pot. Blinds 1/2.
8$ in the pot at flop.

5 different scenarios on flop.

1.You flop a flush (1% of the time), u get lucky but no action.

2. U flop a flush draw(like 10% of the time). People always bet pot if they have something. I don't have the pot odds to call a flush draw.

I might have the implied odds but but when 3 of a suit is out people is easily scared away. If I call flop and does not hit turn then I get even worse implied odds cause betting is now even heavier.

3. You flop an Ace but have bad kicker, not what you want.

4. You flop 2 pair or something else, well, good of course but unlikely and not benefiting from the suited cards.

5. You miss the flop completely.

If someone hits 2 pair or a set they will probably bet further when I hit my flush but will still be cautious.

Since everyone disagrees with me I really need you guys to explain to me where my thinking is wrong.

The same goes for suited connectors in my thinking.
Very rare you get hte pot odds with you cause betting is driving you out or dries up when you hit.

[burningyen]

Here's an article by Matt Lessinger on the subject (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14250).

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody says Ax is better in NL. My experience and thought about it is that it is worse.

Since you all say it is better I believe it but please convince why my reasoning is wrong.

If I flop a nonraised pot with for example A5 suited.
I am in a good position.
4 people in the pot. Blinds 1/2.
8$ in the pot at flop.

5 different scenarios on flop.

1.You flop a flush (1% of the time), u get lucky but no action.

2. U flop a flush draw(like 10% of the time). People always bet pot if they have something. I don't have the pot odds to call a flush draw.

I might have the implied odds but but when 3 of a suit is out people is easily scared away. If I call flop and does not hit turn then I get even worse implied odds cause betting is now even heavier.

3. You flop an Ace but have bad kicker, not what you want.

4. You flop 2 pair or something else, well, good of course but unlikely and not benefiting from the suited cards.

5. You miss the flop completely.

If someone hits 2 pair or a set they will probably bet further when I hit my flush but will still be cautious.

Since everyone disagrees with me I really need you guys to explain to me where my thinking is wrong.

The same goes for suited connectors in my thinking.
Very rare you get hte pot odds with you cause betting is driving you out or dries up when you hit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it really comes down to your postflop play, which is where the real decisions are made in NL/PL HE. I'm very rarely calling on my good draws, so I'm not concerned about getting calling odds -- generally I'm getting even better odds when I play these hands in position, because I've got a certain amount of fold equity, and the rest of the time, I can still improve if I am behind.

Suited connectors can be very profitable hands, but they are tough to play. The biggest thing I can say is this: I've lost my stack with AA more than I have with 67s, and the pots I've won with 67s have generally been larger. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rob

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Since everyone disagrees with me I really need you guys to explain to me where my thinking is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you. I only play these hands when I can get in extremely cheap in late position. They gain some value when the stacks get deeper, but their nature makes them hard to get paid off when you hit your hand. They become very strong hands when you flop pair + flush draw combos. These hands you can be very agressive with and often times take the pot down uncontested.

Justin A

[coltrane]

[ QUOTE ]

This is completely untrue for the games the poster is asking about. Ax is better because of the chances of pairing the ace and winning a small pot. There have to be extremely deep stacks before you start saying Kx is worse because you might lose to the nut flush.


[/ QUOTE ]


obviously, the value of all drawing hands go up as the stacks get deeper.....however, playing with smaller stacks has certain advantages with a hand like Axs, and it is for those reasons that Axs is far more valuable than Kxs....

the obvious advantage (regardless of stack size) is that with Axs you're drawing to the nuts so if you catch someone with a smaller flush, you'll get paid big.....

the other advantage that I alluded to that works especially well with smaller stacks is the ability to semi-bluff on the flop.....because stack sizes make it possible to raise all-in on the flop without making a ridiculous overbet, Axs has a big increase in value (particularly because of the three extra outs that the ace itself can give you)....

for example, if you flop a four-flush on a K-high board and someone that you put on say KQ bets into you, you can essentially raise all-in on the flop.....you either take it down, or if you get called you have 12 outs now instead of 9 - making you almost even money and making the play positive EV......even if someone has KK and the flop comes all babies but gives you a four-flush, it's the same situation.....with small stack sizes, you can do the same push with a set and opponents won't know what you have....

compare this to an ace-high flop when you have Kxs, you now have only 9 outs and are a 2 to 1 dog and have no semi-bluff equity....

also, as people mentioned, if you flop two-pair with Axs and are up against a bigger ace, you can get paid off big...

[GlemZurg]

Regarding this article, this bit sticks out to me:

[ QUOTE ]
The world's best no-limit hold'em cash players see lots of flops. They are confident they can outplay their opposition after the flop,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure risk-taking strategies used by the best in the world are +EV for the common joe. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Also, I think the article's "outplay ... after the flop" includes reading tells and such like that. Online play will limit some of the "outplaying" possible (i.e. you can't see your opponents facial reaction to the flop).

My two BB.

Justin