A question on Skylansky's hand rankings, and two handed odds

[Bigwig]

His hand rankings were a nice start when I started to play hold em seriously in limit ring games. But I've long since been seduced by no limit tourneys, and the rankings don't simply apply (for various reasons, of course).

But, I think that I still have those rankings in my head, and thus probably play suited connectors a little more often then I should, as well as good drawing hands, like KJs and QTs. And, I probably don't play Ax correctly, at least short-handed and in late position.

So, I want to retrain myself a little on what are 'better' no limit hands. My questions:

1. Is there a no-limit version of Skylansky's hand rankings?
2. Someone once posted a website which showed every possible hands probability of winning a heads-up pot with one other random hand. Does anyone have that link?
3. If there isn't a no-limit version of the hand rankings, how should I fix my own head? My guess is that I'm not giving the A enough respect, and pairs as well. And that I'm giving JTs too much respect. What do you think?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

[spacemonkey57]

I don't think there's a No-Limit version of the hand rankings, but if you're new to Sit N Gos Aleo Magnus wrote a great guide to beating the party 10+1s. Check for it with the search function, but early on I think you're only supposed to play pocket pairs and AK. I don't mess around with suited connectors or Axs because they're hard to play after the flop and draws aren't as strong at no limit as they are at limit.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's a No-Limit version of the hand rankings, but if you're new to Sit N Gos Aleo Magnus wrote a great guide to beating the party 10+1s. Check for it with the search function, but early on I think you're only supposed to play pocket pairs and AK. I don't mess around with suited connectors or Axs because they're hard to play after the flop and draws aren't as strong at no limit as they are at limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not 'new' anymore, I think. I've got 500+ online tourneys under my belt at the $20 level on stars (I'm beating the game, but not at an extraordinary rate), and several dozen live events as well. I don't like the blind structure at party, so I quit playing there.

[MercTec]

I agree with you regarding the blind structure at party. I too have stopped playing there for that reason. It seems as if you don't catch a big hand early, it becomes a "push and a prayer" situation once the blinds get high. I was beating the game there at a 42% ITM clip, went on a bad losing streak so i went over to UB for a change of pace and much preferred the blind structure there. Haven't given stars a shot yet but I will soon.

I know the players are worse at party, but July is lookin pretty sweet at UB with their current promotion so we'll see what happens.....plus their site traffic is picking up.

[spacemonkey57]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm not 'new' anymore, I think. I've got 500+ online tourneys under my belt at the $20 level on stars (I'm beating the game, but not at an extraordinary rate), and several dozen live events as well. I don't like the blind structure at party, so I quit playing there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about that. I think Ciaffone talks about starting hands in Pot Limit and No Limit poker, but that's geared towards cash games more than tournies. I think the basic advice is just that pocket pairs are worth more than limit and suited connectors are worth less.

Party's structure does suck. I like UB and even Pokerroom better for tournament structure. Haven't tried Stars yet.

[AleoMagus]

It is important to differentiate between NL sng play and NL ring play as the two games are vastly different.

In all NL play, hands like AQ,AJ,KJ,KQ,QT, etc... go down in value significantly, especially after the pot has been raised. These hands often make good, but second best hands, and in NL this is particularly bad.

In ring play, however, starting hands which have a possibility of making big hands go up in value. In my opinion, this includes not only pocket pairs, but also suited connectors and Axs. This is because with deep stacks a hand like 45s has great deceptive value and can easily bust big pocket pairs and other strong hands if a flop makes your a hand. This is to say that implied odds are much greater with these hands in NL.

In SNG play, the stacks are not that deep so many of those same suited connectors lose that value and become unplayable again. Similarly, hands like AQ and other 'outkicked hands' (while still dangerous) gain a bit of value back because they will not lose too much in proportion to the blind sizes (especially as the sng progresses).

Small and middle pairs are hands which I think play well in both NL ring games and Sngs. This is because they have deceptive power and can make big hands (sets), but also have power in their own right and can take down a lot of big hands with well timed bets (stop and go plays, preflop all-ins, etc...). These hands are a small favorite to most overcard combinations like AK, and are only a really big underdog to an overpair. I personally play small pairs in the early and late stages of a sng.

If you are planning on playing both NL ring games and Sngs, it is important to understand that the games are not played the same way at all. In a sng, you will find yourself with a lot of preflop all-ins and will get into a lot of race situations with hands like QQ or JJ.

If you called a lot of preflop all-ins with QQ in big NL ring games, you could be in for a world of hurt. In ring play, the hand happens on the flop and after while in sngs, it happens before the flop to a lot greater degree.

Regards
Brad S

[Gator]

http://www.gocee.com/poker/he_ev_hand.html

[RoyalSampler]

www.flopturnriver.com (http://www.flopturnriver.com)

Have a proposed adaption for NL. Of course this can be a gray area, but I do like their groupings.

[AleoMagus]

I do not like these rankings

There are a lot of rankings like these that I find to be very flawed.

The reason for this is that too often, people are running computer sims and deciding what is best based on what hands actually win pots the most in the long run. Very bad idea.

Sure, AT is going to win more pots than J9s but to think that it should be more highly regarded in an actual game (limit or NL) is foolish. This guide suggests that J9s, T9s are group 5 hands while AT is group 4.

Any thoughts?
Brad S

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not like these rankings

There are a lot of rankings like these that I find to be very flawed.

The reason for this is that too often, people are running computer sims and deciding what is best based on what hands actually win pots the most in the long run. Very bad idea.

Sure, AT is going to win more pots than J9s but to think that it should be more highly regarded in an actual game (limit or NL) is foolish. This guide suggests that J9s, T9s are group 5 hands while AT is group 4.

Any thoughts?
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. AT is certainly not a better hold em hand than J9s, but in NL tourney's, going to the river is often not an option. And since much of the value of J9s is the possibility of making a straight or flush, you'll often have to see the turn and river to make your hand. This might cost you more chips then you're willing to spend, unless you get a piece of the flop with a J or 9. If you're the aggressor, it's a different story, of course. I think it depends on the scenario. Three handed, sitting on the button, I think I'd rather have AT and win the pot right there. If you raise with J9s, and get called, there's a 90% chance that you're behind already.

But, if you are in late position, and three playes have limped into the pot, then J9s is clearly a MUCH better hand than AT, because of the chances you'll hit a huge hand, and take down a much larger pot.

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do not like these rankings

There are a lot of rankings like these that I find to be very flawed.

The reason for this is that too often, people are running computer sims and deciding what is best based on what hands actually win pots the most in the long run. Very bad idea.

Sure, AT is going to win more pots than J9s but to think that it should be more highly regarded in an actual game (limit or NL) is foolish. This guide suggests that J9s, T9s are group 5 hands while AT is group 4.

Any thoughts?
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. AT is certainly not a better hold em hand than J9s, but in NL tourney's, going to the river is often not an option. And since much of the value of J9s is the possibility of making a straight or flush, you'll often have to see the turn and river to make your hand. This might cost you more chips then you're willing to spend, unless you get a piece of the flop with a J or 9. If you're the aggressor, it's a different story, of course. I think it depends on the scenario. Three handed, sitting on the button, I think I'd rather have AT and win the pot right there. If you raise with J9s, and get called, there's a 90% chance that you're behind already.

But, if you are in late position, and three playes have limped into the pot, then J9s is clearly a MUCH better hand than AT, because of the chances you'll hit a huge hand, and take down a much larger pot.

[/ QUOTE ]


The problem with groupings is that there are different types of hand, which are good in different situations. AT is good shorthanded when no one's limped for it's high-card value. 9Ts is a drawing hand which is great in late position with lots of limpers. You'll always be a dog pre-flop, but it's easier to release on the flop.

AT (and AJ) are horrible hands, and I only play these shorthanded. The only flop I want to see is something like T64 rainbow. Pairing my ace and I'm going to get in trouble (one of those win a little or lose a lot hands). Yes there's two pair, set etc, but they apply to hands like 72o as much as AT.

T9s, on the one hand, is often a 'lose a little, win a lot' hand. The flop will usually miss you, so you fold and lose your BB you limped in PF. But if it hits - straight/flush draw with overcards, or top pair and a straight draw, and I could win big. Bet the pot, and I may take it down. If I get called, I've got lots of outs. In a party game, this could lead to doubling up.

[Sheriff Fatman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm not 'new' anymore, I think. I've got 500+ online tourneys under my belt at the $20 level on stars (I'm beating the game, but not at an extraordinary rate), and several dozen live events as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

After this much play you shouldn't be relying on hand groups to dictate your play. It suggests a formulaic approach to your game (e.g. this is a Group x hand therefore I must...) rather than an assessment of the current situation, your opponents, their likely responses, etc which are crucial in a NL tournament.

Depending on the state of the game there are situations where Group 1 hands become easy pre-flop folds. Rather than looking for another set of rankings you need to be thinking more along the above lines during these games.

Sheriff

[BradleyT]

Courtesy of eastbay.

http://rwa.homelinux.net/poker/hand-rankings.html

[BradleyT]

I dunno dude, if I've played with an opponent enough to know he'll only push preflop with premium hands (group C on that chart I linked to) it's pretty helpful to know that my A4o is only going to hold up 33% against his hand and is an easy fold whereas it holds up 56% vs. a random hand and is usually an easy call against a LAG maniac.

Things like that have really added to my SnG EV but I only play up to the $30 level so maybe it's not helpful at higher limits.

[Sheriff Fatman]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno dude, if I've played with an opponent enough to know he'll only push preflop with premium hands (group C on that chart I linked to) it's pretty helpful to know that my A4o is only going to hold up 33% against his hand and is an easy fold whereas it holds up 56% vs. a random hand and is usually an easy call against a LAG maniac.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly my point - its not the ranking of your cards that you're relying on here its your knowledge of the opponents raising standards.

As for A4o being an easy call are you suggesting that you'd call this for all your chips in the early stages of a tournament? 56% against a random hand is still a coin-flip and, if someone's pushed his chips in that early, he hasn't got a random hand.

Sheriff

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
T9s, on the one hand, is often a 'lose a little, win a lot' hand. The flop will usually miss you, so you fold and lose your BB you limped in PF. But if it hits - straight/flush draw with overcards, or top pair and a straight draw, and I could win big. Bet the pot, and I may take it down. If I get called, I've got lots of outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you lose a lot when you get a draw that never completes? How about when you make a hand that isn't the nuts, and someone just made a bigger flush or straight? How much do you lose when you hit TPWK with T9s? Or do you fold it when someone makes a 1/2 pot bet? How much are you going to lose to someone with AT when the flop comes AT9?

"Lose a little pot, win a big pot" sounds nice, but it doesn't really work that way.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Courtesy of eastbay.

http://rwa.homelinux.net/poker/hand-rankings.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd point out that these "rankings" bear little resemblance to the S-M "hand groups" that we all learned when we picked up our first poker book.

While I computed those numbers for a specific purpose, and I think they serve that purpose well, by no means should one divide up any of those lists into a few "groups" and go "oh, ok, these I can play from late position, these I can play from mid position, and these I can play from early position." I think any presentation of "groups" like that in a no-limit game would be terribly misleading. There are just too many other important variables, especially in a NL tourney: blinds/stacks, the texture of the game, stack ratios, etc. that should influence what hands you play when.

So, caveat emptor on those lists of hands.

eastbay

[Bigwig]

I don't play solely off of hand rankings when playing. I'm just talking about something as a general start. I use the hand rankings to put people on a likely hand, and simply to remind myself to not waste chips by limping in too often. I used to call J9s, for example, under the gun at a full table. Unless the table is unusually tight, however, and I'm no likely to see a raise, I'll fold it now. And it has paid off.

I'm merely asking to help refine my thinking a little more. I understand perfectly that I shouldn't rely on this heavily at all.

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
T9s, on the one hand, is often a 'lose a little, win a lot' hand. The flop will usually miss you, so you fold and lose your BB you limped in PF. But if it hits - straight/flush draw with overcards, or top pair and a straight draw, and I could win big. Bet the pot, and I may take it down. If I get called, I've got lots of outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you lose a lot when you get a draw that never completes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes. With a hand like this I'm in late position. If it's checked to me, I pot-bet and aim to take it down. If I get called, then it's often a free play to the river, so my pot bet on the flop is the only amount I lose. If I'm reraised, or raised before it gets to me on the flush then it comes down to $EV.

This is rather simplistic, but I think I'd lose a lot less with T9s than with AT.

[ QUOTE ]
How about when you make a hand that isn't the nuts, and someone just made a bigger flush or straight?

[/ QUOTE ]

With a flush, then I'm going to lose my stack. But this is very rare. Losing a great hand to a better hand occurs whatever hand you make and it just happens. Specifically with straights, I rarely draw to the low end. With T9 only one straight isn't the nuts, and with TJ they are all to the nuts. Again, if I flop a non-nut straight then I'm likely to lose a large part, or all of, my stack. But there's not much you can do about that.

[ QUOTE ]

How much do you lose when you hit TPWK with T9s? Or do you fold it when someone makes a 1/2 pot bet?


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends how big the pot is and the size of mine and the bettor's stacks, but often I'd fold here. My aim with T9s is drawing to big hands. I'm not going to lose my stack with a TPWK hand.

[ QUOTE ]

How much are you going to lose to someone with AT when the flop comes AT9?


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot. But again, with any hand, your going to lose a lot with bottom two pair.

[ QUOTE ]
"Lose a little pot, win a big pot" sounds nice, but it doesn't really work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are right, it was way too simplistic, and your examples are sound. All hands you can go broke on. But it's less likely you go broke with this than with AT, which I was comparing it to. The main point being that with AT, one of the hands you must be looking for is top pair weak kicker, which you can lose a lot on, or win a little. With TJ, your looking for straights and flushes, which most of the time you fold and lose a little, but when you hit a made hand or a good draw (to the nuts, straight & flush, flush w/ overcards) you can double up.