Spread Limit Hold 'Em Theory

[W. Deranged]

Some Low Spread-Limit Hold ‘Em Theory

As a student and a young player, I have found myself at many low limit tables, notably the $1-3 spread limit hold ‘em table at Turning Stone in Verona, NY. In thinking about how to beat these low limit games, and reading the “loose games” section in HPFAP, as well as “Winning Low Limit Hold ‘Em,” I have come to realize that this type of low, spread limit game is a beast entirely unique to itself, one which, it seems to me, tends to favor bad players more than standard, structured limit games. In other words, the kinds of mistakes that bad players make tend to be punished more in $2-4 (the small game, for example, at Foxwoods) than it is in $1-3.

$1-3 players are by-and-large weak players, who will, like all weak players, play too many hands and play them too long. Particularly, players in this type of game will continue to play if they catch any part of the flop, including middle and bottom pair with no kicker, any straight draw, and bad overcards. In structured limit games, this sort of play gets badly punished on later streets, notably on the turn, where the increase in the size of the bet, combined with the reduction in the number of cards to come, tends to make bad calls significantly unprofitable, even in pots that have been raised on one of the two streets. (In the case where the pot is raised on both streets, the pot becomes so large that such holdings, particularly gutshots to the nuts, become correct to call).

This, though, is not the case in $1-3. Very often, if any amount of money has gotten into the pot pre-flop or on the flop, since the betting cannot increase past $3 on the turn, bad players back into profitable calls on the turn. Since most raises pre-flop and on the flop tend to be maximum raises (the Turning Stone game often plays much more like a straight $3 game than a $1-3 game; $1 bets tend to be “sweetener” bets put in mindlessly and $2 and pretty rare), players tend to get TWICE the odds from the pot on calls on the turn than they would in an identical hand at a structured limit table. What often occurs is that money put in with bad hands by the poorer players builds large pots which give other poor players correct odds to call on later streets.
Here is an example:

You hold AK in sixth position; all but one player calls and you put in a maximum raise to $3 pre-flop. (In the Turning Stone game, as noted, this is very often the size of the first raise pre-flop). Six players see the flop for $4 apiece, and the flop comes A87 rainbow. It is checked to you and you bet $3. Three players call, including one player in position three in front of you. The turn comes a 5. It is checked to you and you bet $3, confident you are still ahead. Both players behind fold, and it is up to the player in position three. The pot is now $39 (24 + 12 + 3), and so position three is getting better than 13 to 1 from the pot. He is holding J10, and hand called on the flop with only a gutshot. He thus has only 4 outs going into the river, but those 4 outs give him 10 to 1 odds to call on the turn. In other words, his automatic call on the turn becomes unquestionably correct, and significantly so, as that bet will show a return of almost 130% in the long-run!

Comparatively, if the hand were played at a $2-4 limit table, the size of the pot when the bet gets to player three would be $36 (24 pre-flop + 8 flop + 4 turn), and so the pot would be only laying the player 9 to 1 to continue drawing, making the turn bet a losing bet. (Given, we are not considering here implied odds and whether the player was getting correct odds to take two shots at the gutshot on the flop, only the momentary profitability of the play on the turn).

One will see many other situations which are similar (a dominated ace-rag playing against AK, players playing middle pair, etc…), where bad players unknowingly make correct calls on the turn due to the character of the betting structure. Even in cases where it is not quite so clear that the turn bets will be correct in a spread-limit game where they will be incorrect in the structured game, it is clear that bad players do not get punished for bad play on the turn in such low, spread-limit games (very bad calls, such as playing gutshots in unraised pots, may become only very slightly bad, etc…)


The conclusion that I have been able to draw from this phenomenon is similar to that suggested in HPFAP in the “loose games” section; namely, that, in such games, it is better not to try to punish your opponents early in the betting (i.e. preflop), when your advantages are slimmer, because that will make some of their later plays correct. Early in the betting, your advantage tends to be smaller than after the flop, and betting heavily early tends to make it impossible to punish opponents later.

The result is that it seems to be incorrect to make maximum raises preflop with hands that are strong, but unlikely to make locks on the flop (namely, reverse-implied odds hands such as AQ and AK offsuit). On some level, I think it may be incorrect to raise at all with AK off in early or middle position in the $1-3 spread limit game, unless, as is rarely the case, there are several early folders who suggest that the pot may be played short-handed. The best hands to raise with, as suggested in HPFAP, are the high pairs and the big suited connectors which have the potential to hit huge flops. Further, it seems generally correct to play AK off for a call-raise, particularly if it will allow you to isolate a loose raiser, as one of the few times pots are played short-handed at 1-3 comes when the pre-flop betting gets to three bets.


Just a couple of ideas on spread limit play. I’m interested to hear comments, particularly as to whether anyone thinks that a game like $1-3 is best played by using all three betting sizes in different situations.