Starting hands in NL

[AleoMagus]

I have about fifteen printed lists of hand rankings for texas hold'em all of which are different. Most authors seem to disagree about how valuable hands are outside of the top ten. That's ok, I guess, because I know hand rankings are situational and I can usually figure out the criteria used in most authors evaluations. What confuses me however, is how those rankings change in No limit. Most authors write for the limit player and only state that "hand values will change in no limit games". How do they change? I have some ideas of my own, but some hands I still wonder about. I am pretty sure pocket pairs go up in value but I am unsure about suited connectors. any help would be appreciated.
Brad S

[tewall]

The smaller the stacks, the more the game plays like a limit game. Large cards are what matters. As the stacks go up (in relation to the blinds, of course) pairs and suited cards go up because of their ability to make big hands. Unsuited big cards go down in value because they will make hands that will win small pots but lose large ones.

[1800GAMBLER]

Bobbby says pairs and suited connectors are up in value. While i agree pairs are HUGELY up in value, any position, most games, i'm unsure about suited connectors due to the nature of the money going in but Bob has studied the game more than i.

Anyhow, the most important NL starting hands changes are don't call even min raises with the following (a tewall variance point):

KQ
AJ
QJ
KJ
TJ

Not even those suited unless there are players coldcalling inbetween. For more understanding use your own raising standards and twodimes.net

[pokerbreathdan]

even suited? iam newish to nl and pl. the main hand i am refering to is AJ suited. i recieved a chart of the odds by % of starting hand holding up in hold 'em based on how many players there are. AJ suited is .1% better than AK off against players from 1 to 10. like i said i am new to n/l and p/l and i know all in is not the call with AJ suited unless circumstances warrant (ie. a short stack moves in and you have a ton more chips etc.) but i don't understand the basis for not calling minmal raises with these hands. the only reason i am asking is to learn.

[Nottom]

If the stacks are big then you can basically treat them like you would a suited connector, but understand you are lookng for big flops with these hands. If you have AJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif, you really want to see something like 3 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif J /images/graemlins/club.gif before tossing in a lot of chips post-flop.

[1800GAMBLER]

It's a good hand in many different situations, but don't call raises with it. The risk-reward just isn't worth it.

The reason for it is to imagine the raisers hands then percentage which have you dominated and then percentage that from the pot odds you are getting. More often than not you'll be dominating, often 50/50 and rarely dominating. I'd also avoid AQs to a raise without a read.

[Vorlin]

I specialize in NL SnG's, not ring games, and this thread is probably the most important I could ever find. The reason for this is that three factors combine to make hand selection the thing you live and die on in SnG's:

1) Almost 1/3 of the time someone will jam in a huge raise on the flop or turn because they're trying to protect a hand or take advantage of a great hand. One bad decision here means that you're in the lobby looking for another game and your entry fee was wasted. You get nothing.

2) This is a more broad example of #1, but anytime you take a stab at a pot and miss, you're either severely crippled or gone right there. NL SnG players know this well and often are forced to bluff an all-in because they're too short stacked to survive if they miss this hand... that may seem foolish, but remember that the caller has to be VERY careful here or end up being crunched himself, unless the loss won't hurt his stack.

3) The blinds go from 10/15 to 500/1000 in about an hour and there are only 8000 total chips on the table. You do the math for a mistake in hand selection at 250/500... that one error can cost you a place, and there's a $100 difference between first and second in a $50 SnG.

So... has anyone done a complete recommeded starting hand set specifically for NL? *Matt*, has David done one? I read his books but see that he said the rankings have to be changed for NL.

I tried some twists with Bob Wilson's TTHE and researched the results with moderate success, but it's still obviously slanted toward a limit ring game that mathmatically depends on how a hand averages out over time. This may be ok for a NL ring game, but for an SnG it can actually lead to a false sense of security. In an SnG, once the blinds hit 25/50 then it's no longer about EV and AVG $ per times dealt, it's about surviving *this* hand, right now!

So then I looked at win percentages and took all hands with a win % of over 50% after a 2 million hand run and you know something? The list leaves you playing far too tightly to ever survive! Even when I dropped it to about a 30% win rate, that was still not enough hands to work with. 2 hours of research and nothing usable from it /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Is there an actual list already created, even if it's only for 10 handed ring games? Of course, anything that has the adjustments for 7, 5, 4 handed would be a dream come true but I can't expect miracles... but I can hope for one! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Thanks,

Vorlin

[Zag]

[ QUOTE ]
... While i agree pairs are HUGELY up in value, any position, most games, i'm unsure about suited connectors due to ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Jay up to here, but I disagree (or maybe just didn't understand) his reasons.

Pairs go way up in value in PL/NL because post-flop play is so much more important in PL/NL than in limit games, because a larger percentage of the money goes in post-flop. There are two post-flop reasons pairs are better: First, when the flop hits your pair, your overlay over the other likely hands is huge. Second, they are a lot easier to play post flop, because you know you want to play them strongly or get out.

When the flop "hits" your suited connectors, it probably means that you have a good draw. Even if you are ahead (or you have the odds to draw), it likely isn't by much. Your pot equity is still pretty close to half. And when you catch your draw, often your opponent can see it and can get away.

Another problem with your connectors is when they flop top pair. In this case, you are stuck not really knowing whether or not you can afford to play them strongly (if PF raiser had AK), or if you are just headed for trouble (if he has an overpair). When your pocket pair makes a set, you can play it strongly without too much fear. The pair is a lot easier to play correctly post-flop.

[tewall]

I think a critical point is at what point the type of hand you're willing to go all-in with changes from a really big hand to a top pair hand. When the blinds are low, you want hands that make sets, straights or flushes. You're very conservative in early position, and try to limp in with the drawing hands in late position and hit something.

At some point you can't continue to play this way because you'll get blinded. At that point it no longer pays to play the drawing hands because you can't afford the flop bet even if you hit your hand (to the point that it has a draw). When this happens, you'd like to have big cards so you have a reasonable chance of hitting a top pair with a decent kicker. As time goes on, any top pair is good, and a bit further, any pair, and finally an Ace or King will do.

I don't know where these points are. I just have guesses, so I'm in the same boat you are I guess. Maybe some wise soul will enlighten us.

[Paul2432]

I think the reason you don't see many hand ranking in NL is that the rankings of hands are very situationally dependent. For example in some situations, AJo is a much better hand than T9s, while in others T9s is much better. There are situations where I might raise with one and fold the other, and other situations, even in the same position where I would do the opposite.

For example, in a S&G tournament, in LP folded to me with short money (say 5x the BB) I would fold T9s but raise all-in with AJo. On the other hand in a ring game in LP with deep money and a couple limpers I would most likely fold AJo and sometimes call and sometimes raise with T9s.

The point is, a list of hand rankings for NL, really needs to be maybe a dozen or more different lists for the myriad of situations that dramatically effect hand rankings.

Paul

[Vorlin]

Tewall, I think that's about as good a read on the overall situation as I've seen yet. It explains why I do so poorly 10-8 handed and yet can rock 6 handed and under... I've been staying away from the draws at all levels.

If I see you on party tonight, I'll let you know it's me. I don't play under this name.

Anyone else?

Vorlin

[1800GAMBLER]

By money going in i slipt it upto all the streets not preflop and postflop.


Money amounts going in change a lot when there are draws on. While the postflop/preflop percentage wise would look good for suited connectors an amount on the flop could spoil everything. This isn't the case with pairs.

I'd go as far as disagreeing with Ciaffone on this; I think he got the idea that suited connectors and medium/low pairs are up in value in NL because he assumes high cards are down in value due to the reserve implied odds, thus the opposite must go up. I wouldn't say that is the case.

A factor to be considered is that high cards lose a lot of value multiway, in NL you can stop this with your bets, so you can play them as desired to keep their value up in no limit.

I think being able to protect your hand aggresssively overweighs the reserve implied odds here.

[1800GAMBLER]

'As the stacks go up (in relation to the blinds, of course) pairs and suited cards go up because of their ability to make big hands. Unsuited big cards go down in value because they will make hands that will win small pots but lose large ones. '

I think multiway vs non multiway here has a lot more effect over the value of the hand. If you are heads up holding big cards you are more likely to win a big pot than lose one, but mostly win small pots.

'pairs and suited cards go up because of their ability to make big hands.'

I'm thinking of the big hands part of that line. The value benefit of having a big hand is that it's more likely someone has a hand just a bit less. But by that logic AK AQ follow the same pattern when dominating hands.

[1800GAMBLER]

My thoughs on changes on hand rankings in NL are that the differences are very marginal. Pairs are up, and this extra value comes solely from high cards. While suited connectors are little over extra..

Edit:

AK, AQ, AJ are all up in value in limit, with there extra value coming from the lost value in the trap hands i listed but they give some value to the draw hands, but less than is taken from the trap hands. This is comparing to limit again.

[tewall]

I think the stack size in relation to the blinds is the most important factor. But if the blinds are small, that has a great impact on the types of hands players are likely to play, and hence the hands that will play well against those hands. If the blinds are large, even if you are playing multi-way, you still shouldn't play drawing hands (like suited connectors -- unless they're large)

I think the stack size would have to be just right for AK vs. AQ to matter. If the blinds are small, a good player won't be playing AQ (except in ideal circumstances, and he would know how to get away from it if need be), and if the blinds are high enough, it gets to a point where you have to take a stand, and if your top pair gets beat by a better kicker, that's the way it goes.

[tewall]

"My thoughs on changes on hand rankings in NL are that the differences are very marginal. Pairs are up, and this extra value comes solely from high cards. While suited connectors are little over extra.. "

Think about this Jay. The structure in limit is totally different than no limit. Much more money goes in after the flop in no limit. (Warning, here comes a double negative) There's no way this cannot have a great impact on how and what hands you should play.

[1800GAMBLER]

'If the blinds are large, even if you are playing multi-way, you still shouldn't play drawing hands (like suited connectors -- unless they're large)'

You should. Since as soon as you flop are draw you can be making money. Unless we are talking about tournment NL now.

' If the blinds are small, a good player won't be playing AQ (except in ideal circumstances, and he would know how to get away from it if need be)'

I don't agree with that either. Raising it up to heads up would still be fine with deep stack sizes.

[Vorlin]

I have a thought here... not sure how far it goes.

**Disclaimer: This is only for NL tournamnets, particularly SnG's where survival is far more important than EV. It does NOT apply to ring / side games.

Now, in short-handed hands we already know that we just don't have the drawing odds to work many suited connectors and one gaps.

We also know that if we have a good hand and the field is 7-10 handed, we can cut the field down considerably with a monster raise to create a short handed situation.

Here is the thought:
If suiteds aren't that much of an advantage short handed and anyone who is dealt a good hand will probably hammer the flop to cut the field, how could it ever be correct to chase a flush draw in a NL SnG if you don't have other outs? This is assuming that someone jams it for a big raise, taking away your drawing odds... and this only happens about 70% of the time, if not more.

Wouldn't that cause a shift, placing hands like AJo above hands like KQs, since most flushes are either flopped or backdoored when going after something else because everyone with AK, AQ or JJ is jamming in raises to take away the odds for people to draw? Those hands are just to provide an example, the idea is that rank becomes far more important than being suited in an SnG.

Using that thinking, suiteds also loose their power even when 10 handed, because, more often than not, the raises on the flop are going to force you to incorrectly chase with bad odds or abandon the hand. By the time this raising calms down, the table has usually gone 6 handed or less in a SnG... so now you may not have enough callers to justify the draw.

Question is, is this thinking flawed or does it look about right to everyone who knows SnG's?

Vorlin

[tewall]

When I say the blinds are large, I mean in relation to the stacks. It wouldn't matter if it's a tournament or not. Drawing hands aren't playable because their implied odds aren't high enough -- the money goes in too soon.

I'm not sure what the context of the raising with AQ heads up is, but if an EP guy came in with a raise, re-raising him with AQ is just asking for trouble.

[tewall]

Suited hands are often overvalued in any context. KQs is a dangerous hand to play in almost any situation, unless the blinds are large so you're playing it for its high card strength, or the conditions are very good for playing a draw.

Since the mistake most people make are bad calls, that's the mistake, IMO, you should most be looking to take advantage of. That would agree with your thinking of not playing flush draws, unless the price is very good. Given the jamming your talking about, you'd like to have a hand that could jam back and expect to be ahead, so hands that can make those types of hands are what you'd like to play.

[1800GAMBLER]

'When I say the blinds are large, I mean in relation to the stacks.'

I know.

'It wouldn't matter if it's a tournament or not. Drawing hands aren't playable because their implied odds aren't high enough -- the money goes in too soon.'

You'd only need 2 blinds before you could be making money. This is more dependant on multiway vs heads up again.

'I'm not sure what the context of the raising with AQ heads up is, but if an EP guy came in with a raise, re-raising him with AQ is just asking for trouble'

I didn't meantion reraising.

[Mike Gallo]

Excellent responses so far.

I think no limit starting hands all depend on the game.

One author advocates playing small suited connectors. He condones this line of play because he feels he can bust a player who cannot release a big pocket like pair AA KK.

I do agree with staying away from unsuited overcards and calling raises with big unsuited connectors.

[tewall]

"You'd only need 2 blinds before you could be making money. This is more dependant on multiway vs heads up again."

I'm not getting this. Draws are worth playing when you can get in cheaply and the money is deep because you can possibly win a big pot with a small investment. If you can get a draw, and aren't charged too much on the flop, and call and make your draw, you might double up. That makes it worth playing.

If the blinds are large, then you don't have the implied odds that make the draw worth playing. As an extreme example, let's assume all the money goes in pre-flop. Against 2 people with just random hands, 87s isn't worth playing. Even against 4 people (so this is very multi-way) with just random cards, it's a money loser. When you take into account that people don't play random cards, it makes it even more clear that simply being multi-way is not enough. You want the ratio of what you have to pay to see a flop vs. your potential winnings to be very small. This is a function of the depth of the stacks and how many people are involved, and the former is more important than the latter. If the blinds are large, the ratio of what you have to pay to see the flop vs. your potential winnings can't possibly be small.

I missed your point regarding AQ. I'm saying that AQ becomes more valueable as the size of the blinds increase and conversely diminishes in value as the blinds decrease.

You say (I think) that it's just as valueable with deep stacks if it is heads up. What kind of hand do you want to flop with AQ? Unless you hit a miracle flop of KJT or QQQ, if you get action with any flop and the money is deep, there's a good chance you're in trouble.

If the blinds are large, you feel much better about AQ. Heck, if they're large enough, your happy just to have an ace.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
"You'd only need 2 blinds before you could be making money. This is more dependant on multiway vs heads up again."

I'm not getting this. Draws are worth playing when you can get in cheaply and the money is deep because you can possibly win a big pot with a small investment. If you can get a draw, and aren't charged too much on the flop, and call and make your draw, you might double up. That makes it worth playing.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's one, single, selective way the hand can make money.

Suited connectors are also worth playing for value when you go multiway. This time you don't even need to use implied odds. You'll even have betting odds with the amount of players. You call a blind 5 way. You bet, get 3 callers. You just made money.

You'll flop a draw 4:1 as well, so you don't need huge amounts of blinds.

'Even against 4 people (so this is very multi-way) with just random cards, it's a money loser.'

I've yet to dealt out a set of 9 starting hands, using 1 as a blind then selecting the best were 87s hasn't had more pot equity than 0.2.

'When you take into account that people don't play random cards, it makes it even more clear that simply being multi-way is not enough.'

You are looking at that wrong. With them not playing random cards they play similar cards, hence they are more likely to dominate each other with high cards and give you more pot equity again.

'I missed your point regarding AQ. I'm saying that AQ becomes more valueable as the size of the blinds increase and conversely diminishes in value as the blinds decrease.

You say (I think) that it's just as valueable with deep stacks if it is heads up. What kind of hand do you want to flop with AQ? Unless you hit a miracle flop of KJT or QQQ, if you get action with any flop and the money is deep, there's a good chance you're in trouble.'

No. You said it wasn't playable at all. I give a way in which it could be played.

Getting action on this hand doesn't mean trouble either, maybe in the toughest game possible. More often than not it's pot betting, getting a call here wouldn't mean trouble.

[1800GAMBLER]

Bob Ciaffone on deep stack sizes with AK.

[ QUOTE ]


First, assume it is early in an event. You are first to act with Slick. The blinds are $5-$10, and you have $500 in starting chips. Should you be fortunate enough to open with a raise and win the blind money, you will become the proud owner of $515 — but this is scarcely a sum to make much of a difference in your prospects. Suppose that instead of scooping up the blind money, you have a caller to your $35 opening raise. There is now $85 in the pot and you are about a 2-to-1 dog to make a pair. I want to bet on the other guy. You have the initiative, but he has position, and probably the better hand . The initiative is certainly worth something, but there is a lot to be said for simply having a good hand in position. To make a comparison with warfare, I find more attraction for protective fortifications and better weaponry than the guts to charge into the guns. (I would rather be the victor than receive a postmortem poem lauding my courage.) So, when the blinds are low enough to be uninteresting, I prefer to be a pussycat and tiptoe into the pot.



[/ QUOTE ]


Maybe in his games. Not in 95% of the games though. That's why action on AQ isn't bad.

[tewall]

'That's one, single, selective way the hand can make money.

Suited connectors are also worth playing for value when you go multiway. This time you don't even need to use implied odds. You'll even have betting odds with the amount of players. You call a blind 5 way. You bet, get 3 callers. You just made money.'

What are you saying here? What money did you win? You could say the same thing about playing 72. "You call a blind 5 way. You bet, you get 3 callers. You just made money." What in the world are you saying?

'I've yet to dealt out a set of 9 starting hands, using 1 as a blind then selecting the best were 87s hasn't had more pot equity than 0.2.'

I don't know what this has to do with anything. What I said was suppose there's only enough money to bet pre-flop, so 5 people go in. That's 4 other people and 87s. 87s would have pot equity of less than .20. So even though it's multi-way, it loses money. Draws make their money after the flop. That's why you want to play them cheaply and in position.

'You are looking at that wrong. With them not playing random cards they play similar cards, hence they are more likely to dominate each other with high cards and give you more pot equity again. '

So you think 87s will do better against good hands than against random hands? Try doing this. Go to www.twodimes.net (http://www.twodimes.net) and put in some typical good hands and put in 87s, and see if you can find some combination where you get a pot equity of .20.

'No. You said it wasn't playable at all. I give a way in which it could be played.'

That's not what I said at all. Please re-read what I wrote.

This is from Ciaffone's book: "Hands like A-K, A-Q, and K-Q are used at limit play for making top pair with a good kicker. That hand is okay at big-bet poker for winning a small pot--or losing a big one. Since getting doubled up is what we aim for, these hands are dangerous. Don't back a top pair with all your money unless forced to by a very high ante structure."

I didn't say and am not saying that AQ can't be played. The original question had to do with value of NL hands. I said that AQ goes up in value as the size of the blinds go up. I said that, with deep money, a good player will play AQ very cautiously and won't get trapped with it. I didn't say it was unplayable under any conditions.

You wrote elsewhere in this thread that you felt that the hands changed very little. "My thoughs on changes on hand rankings in NL are that the differences are very marginal."
This is simply not correct. The differences in the blind structures and varying bet sizes have profound effects and the relative values of hands. There's no way this could not be the case.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
You could say the same thing about playing 72.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't. 72o would not flop that much pot equity as often as 78s.

[ QUOTE ]

What I said was suppose there's only enough money to bet pre-flop, so 5 people go in. That's 4 other people and 87s. 87s would have pot equity of less than .20. ... That's why you want to play them cheaply and in position...



[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have less than .20 in the majority of cases.

[ QUOTE ]


Try doing this. Go to www.twodimes.net (http://www.twodimes.net)



[/ QUOTE ]

I did.

[ QUOTE ]
That's not what I said at all. Please re-read what I wrote

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If the blinds are small, a good player won't be playing AQ


[/ QUOTE ]

Ciaffone wise:

[ QUOTE ]
Since getting doubled up is what we aim for, these hands are dangerous. Don't back a top pair with all your money

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't like this idea of playing no limit to just double up, while you are waiting for these hands to double you up you could take enough medium pots with these hands to get there as well.

Backing a single pair for all your stack is just bad poker.

[ QUOTE ]
This is simply not correct. The differences in the blind structures and varying bet sizes have profound effects and the relative values of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

The values of the hands change on every different street. Postflop is your worry with high unsuited cards, not preflop. I would like you to list some of the effects and different hands values you think are the changes though.

Twodimes wise:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
8s 7s 142426 16.74 696129 81.83 12113 1.42 0.174
As Ac 395308 46.47 454424 53.42 936 0.11 0.465
Jd Th 113149 13.30 736583 86.59 936 0.11 0.133
Qd 7h 60269 7.08 778286 91.49 12113 1.42 0.078
4h 2h 127403 14.98 722329 84.91 936 0.11 0.150

</pre><hr />

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
8s 7s 196662 23.12 653308 76.80 698 0.08 0.231
6h 5h 158254 18.60 691716 81.31 698 0.08 0.186
Jd Kh 164991 19.40 684979 80.52 698 0.08 0.194
Ac 2h 168671 19.83 681299 80.09 698 0.08 0.198
Tc Qd 161392 18.97 688578 80.95 698 0.08 0.190

</pre><hr />

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
8s 7s 196738 23.13 652798 76.74 1132 0.13 0.232
Jd 5h 99400 11.68 750136 88.18 1132 0.13 0.117
As Kh 226914 26.67 622622 73.19 1132 0.13 0.267
3c 3h 149730 17.60 699806 82.27 1132 0.13 0.176
Tc Qd 176754 20.78 672782 79.09 1132 0.13 0.208

</pre><hr />

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
8s 7s 144650 17.00 695080 81.71 10938 1.29 0.176
8c 8d 207987 24.45 631743 74.26 10938 1.29 0.250
Kc Qc 276975 32.56 555473 65.30 18220 2.14 0.336
9c Kh 67219 7.90 754323 88.67 29126 3.42 0.096
Jc 9h 115328 13.56 722879 84.98 12461 1.46 0.142

</pre><hr />

Anymore you want you can run. The 2nd hand in all the cases was the BB hand i dealt. No SB was dealt (goes aginst the 78s)

It's easy to see this hand if all the money was going in preflop is only in bad shape in the rare cases it's dominated, a bigger sample would show these less than likely cases. This sample shows it's 50/50 dominated, which just isn't true.

[1800GAMBLER]

Another point towards the marginal issue of this. In a tournment i could see how changes on starting hands as there your stack size will typically range from 1 blind to 20 blinds for the most part of the tournment with the most important factor, against opponents which some will have you covered when you are deep, or at least be close to it.

In a ring game 25 or 50 blind structure, then the range isn't so great and if you do get deep it's unlikely you'll see another opponent as deep as you are and your starting hands should be based on the depth of the players in the pot (if that's how you base your starting hands), which are all going to be around the buy in, even more so online.

So you aren't going to be either faced with a huge blind structure or a small blind structure (yes, it could be argued that 50 blind stacks are huge) so your only adjustment is compared to limit; not ever changing your starting hands. In which trap hands are down, given the value mostly to drawing hands (more so pairs) and then high cards.

The range of games of which have different blind structures isn't great either to make changes to playing them.

Theory wise those, drawing hands would benefit from small blinds and none drawing hands would benefit from high blinds, but ring game wise the blinds never vary to one side or another enough to make huge changes.

The main way to benefit from these blinds is to decide on how loose or tight to play, you could be a winning online player with a 50 by just waiting for AA KK QQ. Ray Zee argues this the problem with NL.

I wonder what ciaffone means, or how he does it, when he doubles up with suited connectors, the only way is to draw to a straight against the odds then get the players who stack, but even with that your final +EV isn't great. You aren't going to get a cheap draw then all of a sudden get 30 times more what the player has been betting. Flush draws the money always goes in backwards to how you want it. You get charged on your draws then every player fears the 3rd suited card and you aren't going to make the implied odds if you drawn against the pot odds.

Suited connectors also hugely desire postion due to effective odds and closing the action/close to the end of the action in no limit.

While they may be up, they aren't up much. I still say playing in a loose game would be more benefital for a suited connector than a deep game.

Typical, 25/50 blind stack structure. I'd rather take 5 players with the buy in in a pot with me than 2 with 5 times the buy in. Reasons being, i can make money on the flop and not have to be scared about a pot bet, deep stacks rarely go in so i'd rather have a better shot a more people's buy in than fewer bigger stacks.

The extra depth here doesn't even account for how rare they will put those stack sizes in. If he's putting that whole stack in he isn't going to even give a pot sized bet draw, which you aren't going to get any other callers and then you don't have the odds. If you are against an average stack he'll put in a pot bet, even those you don't have the odds you only need 1 more callers and the pot size is irrevelant.

[tewall]

I pretty much agree with what you wrote here. I think you're characterization of a loose game is better than multi-way. Multi-way by itself is a bit vague. I agree that you'd rather play suited connectors in a loose game. I also agree with your statement suited connectors go up some, but not as much as pairs (at least, I think that's what you're saying).

One thing I noticed which may be leading to a large part of the disagreement is what it means for the stacks to be deep. Deep stacks do not mean 25 to 50x the blinds from my frame of reference. These to me are short to medium stacks. Deep stacks would be from 100x to 250x and up. It is in this context that AQ is not a good hand to be playing, unless you're just trying to pick up the blinds or a cheap pot. If you get action on a flop here, with decent players, you're likely in trouble.

I also think that this may be the source of your disagreement with Ciaffone. He's not talking about the same games you are. You'll notice that he does qualify his discussion to high unsuited cards when speaking to short stacks.

Finally I'll mention that I can't think of anything I've read conceptiionally by Ciaffone that is incorrect. If you read what he writes carefully and understand what he's writing in it's proper context, I think you'll find there's a lot to learn. He's an exceptionally talented individual IMO.

[Guy McSucker]

yes, it could be argued that 50 blind stacks are huge

Hmmm. I don't think that could be argued at all.

With 50BB, if the pot is raised preflop, say to 4BB, and there is one caller, let's say there are 10BB in the pot. There's now enough left for two bets only.

Huge stacks are the ones where it's raised preflop, you bet the flop and get called, bet the turn and get raised, and your opponent still has enough to reraise you if you play back, with enough left for another bet on the river, and all these bets are pot-sized. Now you have to play some cards!

Guy.

[1800GAMBLER]

I said it could be classed as huge because a lot of hands are still getting implied odds to call a 4BB raise with a 50BB stack waiting for them.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Brad,

&lt;&lt;I have about fifteen printed lists of hand rankings for texas hold'em all of which are different. Most authors seem to disagree about how valuable hands are outside of the top ten. That's ok, I guess, because I know hand rankings are situational and I can usually figure out the criteria used in most authors evaluations. What confuses me however, is how those rankings change in No limit. Most authors write for the limit player and only state that "hand values will change in no limit games". How do they change? I have some ideas of my own, but some hands I still wonder about. I am pretty sure pocket pairs go up in value but I am unsure about suited connectors. any help would be appreciated.&gt;&gt;

Arrrrrgh ... difficult question with almost as many answers as there are players. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

First, keep in mind that Hold'Em (even no-limit) is a game of straights and flushes. That is, they fall often enough that you need to look for cheap opportunities to make them and beware of others who are looking to make them, or have made them already.

Second, no-limit Hold'Em is less about cards than it is about the players. It's the only poker game where you can consistently win with trash cards ... IF you can read your opponents and time your bluffs well.

Third, position is HUGELY important in no-limit Hold'Em. I have a saying: "trash plus the button is a decent hand." Which is not to say you'll play any trash hand on the button, but you can be a lot more creative in the right situations.

As others have said, pairs (even small pairs) go up in value vs. limit hold'em. Big, unsuited cards go down, except in the later stages of a tournament where you can steal blinds with them.

In general, I won't call a raise with AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, KT, or QJ, even if they're suited. I do like QTs and JTs, even against a small raise, because the 10-connectors are so powerful. More on that below. I will probably call a small raise on AQ (suited or not), but not a huge raise.

As for suited connectors, it depends on position, who's in the pot, and how much it costs to get in. I'm more likely to go in on a 10-connector (QT, JT, T9), or slightly less often, a 5-connector (65, 75), because the 5- and 10-connectors are much more powerful. The reason, simply, is that every straight includes either a 5 or a 10; if I have one of those in my hand already, my straight possibilities are stronger. I prefer suited connectors because the flush possibility adds some equity. In good position, against a player I can read well, in the right situation, I may even call a raise on a suited 5- or 10-connector. (I'll almost never call a raise on other connectors like 67, 89, etc.)

The key is that you want to be playing hands that YOU know how to play well. Pocket pairs are easy to play, with the exception of JJ, which is THE most dangerous pocket pair in no-limit Hold'Em (explanation below). The general rule on pocket pairs is "no set, no bet." You know what board you want, and it's easy to get away if you don't get it. AK is a great hand in no-limit; it justifies a big pre-flop raise and will often win right there, and if you're called, it's a hit-or-quit hand that doesn't require a lot of judgment.

High cards and suited connectors require a lot of judgment, experience, reading ability, and the discipline to know when you're beaten and lay them down. So I'd avoid them until you feel confident in those areas.

Cris

P.S.: Why is JJ the most vulnerable pocket pair? Simple. It's a big raising hand, which means if you're called, your opponent probably has something. If overcards fall on the flop (A, K, or Q), you're probably dead. If undercards fall on the flop, there will ALWAYS be a straight draw out there -- it's impossible to deal three cards 10 or under that don't make a straight draw -- and it's always possible that someone called you with a lower pair and has hit for a set. So you're really only secure if you hit a set on the flop. That's why I DON'T like to see a flop on JJ.

[tewall]

"In good position, against a player I can read well, in the right situation, I may even call a raise on a suited 5- or 10-connector. (I'll almost never call a raise on other connectors like 67, 89, etc.)"

By your logic, 45s is a better hand than 89s, because, apparently, any straight has to have a 5 or T. However, 89s makes just as many straights as 45s, and is a better hand. So I'm missing something.

[CrisBrown]

Hi tewall,

Any straight in poker contains either a 10 or a 5 (A-10 down to 10-6, 9-5 down to 5-A). For that reason, I believe the 5- and (especially) 10-connectors to be more powerful than the others; you already have the 5 or 10 in your hand.

I don't like 45s, though, because it will rarely hit for the nut straight. More often, it will be the sucker end, and it'll cost you a lot of money. And that's another big consideration: which straight will you hit? Thus, I prefer the over-connectors (QT, JT, 75, 65) rather than the under-connectors (T9, T8, 54). As for 53 ... *shrugs* ... that's a hand I'll only play for free from the big blind.

Cris

[tewall]

"Any straight in poker contains either a 10 or a 5 (A-10 down to 10-6, 9-5 down to 5-A). For that reason, I believe the 5- and (especially) 10-connectors to be more powerful than the others; you already have the 5 or 10 in your hand."

The fact that a straight must have a 5 or T in it does not make having a 5 connector better than having a higher connector. Any higher connector than a 5 is better than 5 connector. 6, 7, 8, and 9 connectors all makes exactly as many straights as a 5 connector. Even though QJ doesn't make as many straights, it's clearly a better hand than 65.