NL hand chart

[Steve]

Just wondering if any of the NL books (I haven't seen any yet) actually come with a "hand chart" similar to HPFAP, but for NL/PL.

Basically it would have to make some assumptions, something like:

-- stacks are, say, 40BB deep
-- assume all raises and re-raises are basically the size of the pot.

This chart would then address what hands to open-raise with from what position, what hands to re-raise with, etc.

I'd be curious to see some various pros options on this because they might vary.

[fishfeet]

I dont beleive in a set of 'rules' when it comes to betting.. what hands to bet... ect.
It depends on your style and skill level. It depends on your oppenents style and skill level.

Sure you are going to raise with AA. But do you re-reraise if you are reraised? Some say yes, some say no.. and the smart ones say 'it depends on the situation and your oppenent'

[boondockst]

i'm no pro....but i seriously don't think you should be at a real money NL table if you're using any sort of "chart" I think you know what to play and only lack the confidence in your preflop play.

[jtr]

Why the disdainful attitude to charts, Boondockst?

Of course I take your point that once you've learned your way around a no-limit table, you should have figured out that small pocket pairs are great for limping in for set value, KQo is a potentially very dubious hand, etc., etc., etc. But I think the original poster asks a good question.

Most of us probably started out explicitly using a chart, right? And just because the strategy encoded in that chart has now been internalized and we don't need to look at the chart anymore, well, that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to learn from a good chart in the first place.

Not trying to pick a fight here; it's just that I've gotten to thinking about some preflop issues lately in the short-stacked Party games that make me sympathetic to the original poster's question. Take a hand like AXs for example: I have a sneaking suspicion that I limp with this too early and too often. Sure, if everyone had 100 or more big-blind stacks, no problem. But on Party, I'm starting to suspect the implied odds aren't there, especially given the difficulties in getting a made flush paid off.

Now this is exactly the sort of thing that a good chart might sort out for the original poster. It might suggest "AXs: only on CO and button, behind at least 3 limpers." Or something like that. When he gets better, he can vary his play, but this might be a great start.

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
But do you re-reraise if you are reraised? Some say yes, some say no.. and the smart ones say 'it depends on the situation and your oppenent'

[/ QUOTE ]

Fishfeet, I see what you're saying here. But don't you think it's worth entertaining the notion that sometimes the "it depends" response is a cop-out? Sometimes we make poker out to be harder than it really is. In the example you give, with AA, and assuming we're talking about online low stakes games like $50 or $100 buyins, I cannot see an argument for anything but pushing here.

OK, if you play in really serious games where the push will absolutely be folded to, and greater strategic subtlety is necessary, then more power to you. I just think that maybe sometimes on this forum we pretend that a problem is strategically deeper and more complex than it actually is because that way it gives us more to talk about.

And you seem to subscribe to the idea that "simple rules" are for bad players, and that one has to graduate as soon as possible to some expert state in which the many variables affecting a betting decision are balanced against each other in a subtle way that can never be verbalized. There's a part of me that wants to agree with you. But there's another part of me with a really strong suspicion that in online low-stakes NL, the guy who played with a single sheet of paper spelling out some well-crafted "simple rules", and mindlessly stuck to them, would make more money than a player who tried to be an expert and sometimes ended up out-foxing himself against poor opponents.

As above, not trying to start a fight here, just wanting to float this idea for general criticism.

[d1sterbd]

I agree with jrt 100% here. Every book I have ever read comes with a hand chart or at least some reference for general guidelines for starting hands (besides Psychology of Poker). What is wrong with asking for one for NL cash games to see if other good people play certain hands that you wouldn't? Information like that is neccessary so that we can analyze our own games. That is what this forum is for.

[Steve]

Yeah, even Sklansky has to make several assumptions when making his hand chart (is the game loose/tight/agg/etc). But his chart is a baseline to be adjusted based on your particular circumstances. I would think the same sort of chart could be made for NL, albeit there would have to be more assumptions (such as the ones I mentioned -- quality of opponents, stack depth). But nevertheless a baseline would be useful.

Another take on this would be a NL tournament chart. Late in the tournament when open-limping is basically not even an option any more. Someone could make a chart of what hands to open-raise with from what position.

[fishfeet]

[ QUOTE ]
and assuming we're talking about online low stakes games like $50 or $100 buyins, I cannot see an argument for anything but pushing here

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is the difference. In a low limit ONLINE game, I do agree that most times I will push, and most should. But I wasnt speaking for just online.
Since Im a poor college student I dont play online anymore. I play live games... so my comments were directed to all situations.. and if you include all situation, all game types at all limits, then a 'it depends' isnt really a cop out.
But I guess since the majority of people here play online (and this is the small stakes PL/NL section) then I could have narrowed down my answer a bit.

I guess a chart is acceptable for a beginning player. Hell, when I first started I guess I recall looking at one from time to time. But that was only when I was first learning the game.
But I never sat at a game, live or online, with one. I feel that a mechalical approach to the game is a bad one.. with the exception of a table that is very loose and inexperienced.. which perhaps is a majority of players in the low limit NL tables.

When I played on UB, I played the .10/.25 NL tables.. and my play was kind of mechanical.. simce a majority of people in there dont know what they are doing.
But at a table where most of the players have a decent grasp of the game, that kind of play wouldnt be good.