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

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.