View Full Version : hold'em Ev NO LIMIT

11-05-2002, 03:58 AM
Anyone care to hazard a set for "minimum starts'' ?

I realize all 'minimum start' charts are mechanical creations based on probability, and their usefulness pre-flop is limited by the fact that the players will vary from weak-tight to maniacs, etc.

Nevertheless, nearly all HE books give a 'minium start' chart or hand ranking with the aforementioned warning.

Now then, in a game of implied odds (to put it mildly!) as No-Limit, how would anyone go about calculating such a chart? Is it even possible?

10 player table.

Do you go all-in UTG with KK's---no wait that's getting ahead of ourselves --or is it? Perhaps a 'minimum ' start chart would have to state; go all in, or raise 1/3 of your stack. and if called then . . .Intriguing.

Would you call on the button with 76o against two limpers? it's a horrible hand in limit but remember. implied odds!

Has anyone, anywhere, come up with a soluton to this, or at least a useful comment beyond: well, I guess it must be different than hand rankings in limit (no S*** Sherlock!)

OK, that's the problem, class give it your best shot /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

11-05-2002, 01:49 PM
My opinion on N/L is that the following are important listed in order of importance:

1) Your position
2) You opponent and their tendencies
3) Relative stack sizes
4) Your starting hands

Numbers 2 and 3 may be interchangeable but your starting hands are certainly last. Therefore I give only marginal consideration to my starting hands as compared to the other 3 factors.


angelo alba
11-05-2002, 06:12 PM
Got to agree with Jimbo here.
I've seen KK's go all in UTG and lose to 10-9s.

Now if you've played 10 + hands and everyone is playing tight and cautious, not weak-tight just 'by the book' which often happens at the beginning of tournaments when players are trying to feel each other out, even more so IMHO than in a ring game then perhaps you could say with some confidence that your 'minimum' starting hands should be....

(Naw...I'd have a better chance of predicting the weather a year from now. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif )

Well, it's not a bad question; given the element of implied odds, just needs a better mathematician than me to answer it.

Good Luck!

11-05-2002, 09:39 PM
Ive played on low limit NLHE tables where Ive played nearly every hand and still returned a sizable win day after day.

This is because the postflop play leaves so much room for outplaying certain (loose passive)games.

There was a thread around somewhere a couple of weeks ago where a guy said it wasnt possible to win at no limit holdem by never raising preflop.

Those who know me to be honest, please take it from me that there are games you could beat by calling non-raised pots 100% preflop.
Im not claiming it maximizes your EV, but it can be done.

The major changes in NLHE in a more "normal" game to fixed limit is that small pairs go way way up in value, and suited connectors come way way down.

Hands like KQ, AJ, KJs all come down in my opinion, but I play these hands badly at fixed limit, so my opinion is probably not too great.
Seems to me that in fixed limit they are stronger because hitting top pair with bad kicker and losing isnt fatal, in no limit these hands are dangerous as hell.


11-06-2002, 01:19 AM
The major changes in NLHE in a more "normal" game to fixed limit is that small pairs go way way up in value, and suited connectors come way way down.

You mean that suited connectors are worth more in no-limit than in limit, right? I thought medium suited connectors are extremely valuable in no-limit because of their high implied odds.

From Doyle Brunson's Super System:

"This is the hand I'm looking for when I play No-Limit Hold 'em. Small connecting cards (suited) - the 7c6c, 8h7h, 5d4d. That's the kind of hand I want. It's my favorite".

11-06-2002, 11:04 AM
I actually mean they go down, but it depends drastically on the game.

If you flop a flush draw/straight draw in a no limit game then you often cant pay to stay in the pot.

The implied odds on small pairs however are fantastic, because when you flop one you can pretty much play the pot how you like and return a massive profit.

Perhaps my lack of understanding of suited connectors in limit is what made this statement bad.

I dont like medium suited connectors in no limit because you lose a lot of your implied odds if you have to fold on the flop, so you have to hit the hand pretty well (like flopping a straight draw and a flush draw) or be in a passive game to get your value.

EV for each hand changes massively depending on the opposition.


Super/System was one of the only poker books I have ever felt the need to read, and it is very good, however remember that people understand odds much better nowadays and are not likely to let you draw with the correct odds, also remember that Doyle "never" plays AQ, and although I understand his logic, it does show his tendancy to exaggerate to make his point.

angelo alba
11-06-2002, 08:27 PM
Dear Santa:

What I'd like for Christmas is an explanation of Doyle's preference for suited 87, 76 and 54 in NL.

I suppose if once upon a time nobody played a hand that did not have at least a 10 kicker, it would make some kind of sense, assuming you could see the flop cheaply.

Then again, if after the flop you've got a flush draw and the players with the big pairs (or even made sets that are not high in ranks) are afraid of the board, NOT because of theflush potential, but because bigger cards are showing which could have given someone else a better hand , AND they keep limping you might be able to take them on the turn or river if you do make the flush (AND betting pattern indicated no one held AKs in the same suit).
similarly for straights. That's a lot of ifs, but it could pay off handomely if rarely.

What do you think, Santa?

11-07-2002, 11:58 AM
bruce -

the way i read it, doyle was saying that since he was able to steal so many pots by drowning his opponents with chips, he was essentially gambling their money, not his. when he made longshot calls with these kinds of hands, his implied odds in his mind went way up. if he drew out, he was going to bust someone for all their chips. if not, it didn't matter. he could simply steal some more pots to finance another adventure. so putting in even money on a 3-1 shot, for instance, was no big deal.

note that if you for some reason can't steal all those pots anymore, this approach is a loser. which is why, i think, doyle later reported that he regretted writing the book.

the club