Not sure about my play here..... And a question

[Gomez22]

UB $.25 BB NLHE - 9 Handed

UTG($24.50)
MP2($12.20)
MP3($26.75)
CO($1.85)
Button(ME - $29.65)
SB($27.10)

I'm button with 10 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

UTG calls the BB of $.25, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, I call, SB raises to $2.00, BB folds, UTG folds, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO folds, I call.

FLOP($8.75): J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

SB checks, MP2 checks, MP3 bets $.25, I call, SB calls, MP2 calls.

TURN($9.75): 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

SB checks, MP2 bets $.25, MP3 calls, I call, SB calls.

RIVER($10.75): 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

SB checks, MP2 bets, MP3 folds, I call, SB folds.

SB showed K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

With the flush draw hitting the turn, I hesitated to raise any since I had 2 of the players involved pegged as flush mongers..... Was this the right play?

ALSO - I've found that I'm playing VERY tight lately... mostly due to taking some HORRENDOUS beats the past 2 days.... Is NL, compared to limit, a game that should be played a little more loose than a limit player plays?

[Richie Rich]

You didn't indicate how much was bet on the river... Obviously he didn't bet enough on the flop to make it expensive for anyone on a draw -- in this case, you. I definitely would have raised him a little bit on the river...the only hand that could've beat you was a flush, and since he was betting extremely weak, I wouldn't guess that he had it.

In my experience, you can play a bit looser in limit than in NL. KJ, for example, is something that I would play from MP in limit, but would only consider on the button in NL. Then again, everyone's got their own personal style...

[Gomez22]

It was a minimum($.25) bet.....

[EVIL]

[ QUOTE ]

Is NL, compared to limit, a game that should be played a little more loose than a limit player plays?


[/ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest difference is that you should be looser with some types of hands in NL than in limit, and tighter with others. Also I think you want to be relatively tighter in early position and looser in late position in NL as compared to limit.

The types of hands you can be looser with in NL include hands such as small and medium pairs. You do not necessarily need 5:1 immediate pot odds in NL like you do in limit for these hands to be playable, because you have such good implied odds if your opponents are not short-stacked. If the table is not very aggressive, and you think on average you can see a flop for less than 5% of your stack, then these pairs should be playable from any position at a full table (unless your opponents are short-stacked). The type of hands you usually want to be tighter with (at a full table) include big offsuit cards like KQo.

[Gomez22]

[ QUOTE ]
The type of hands you usually want to be tighter with (at a full table) include big offsuit cards like KQo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply, EVIL... that's about the same conclusion I came to today... I don't think I'll ever be playing KQo in NL again unless I can limp with it...... from anyplace. It's almost worthless in a NL game, at least in my opinion.

I've broken things down right now to 4 basic groups:

THE BIG HANDS
AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, AQs, AKo

THE PAIRS
1010-22

THE SUITED CONNECTORS
KQs-54s

THE LIMPERS
AQo, AJo, KQo, KJo, QJo, J10o

The way I look at it, THE BIG HANDS are normal raise/re-raise hands PF.

THE PAIRS are normally play anyplace and call sensible raises with(not all-ins necessarily, or 10xBB bets, although it can be relative).

THE SUITED CONNECTORS are hands that I'll play anyplace, especially for a limp (although KQs may be an exception), and will often call smaller raises with the bigger end of them.

THE LIMPERS are just that - hands I will normally only enter a pot if I can limp, and sometimes not even then, especially towards the lower end of that spectrum(QJo, J10o, for example)

What do ya think about my list?

[EVIL]

Hi Gomez22. Here are some comments I have re. your starting hands. Nearly all of my experience is based on the "typical" Party $25 and $50 NL games, and so may be wrong for other games and is not necessarily optimal even for the Party games.

BIG HANDS: I prefer to see a cheap flop with AQs.

THE PAIRS: I agree these are playable from any position if the game is not too aggressive preflop, so I can expect to see a flop for a good price on average.

SUITED CONNECTORS: I tighten up with the smaller suited connectors substantially in EP. About the lowest one I'll limp with in EP is JTs.

LIMPERS: In EP I muck all of these except for AQ, which I limp with. The other ones I'll play only in LP and usually only to isolate a single weak limper (or steal blinds), in which case I raise (with AQ as well). Note that all the hands in your LIMPERS group are identified in Super System as trouble hands (at a full table). Even though Brunson played in totally different types of games than the small-stakes online games we play in, the same rationale applies: you have to be careful because there's a lot of boards where you'll only get action when you're a big dog. I think it's best to avoid these hands unless the situation or game conditions indicate they are playable.


Actually in the case of isolating a weak limper (or two) or stealing the blinds I will often raise with any playable hand in LP. Even though I'm cutting my own implied odds by doing this with hands such as small pairs or suited connectors, I think the EV from raising is better nonetheless in these types of situations, because it reduces the need for you to get a good flop. I think this works best against a weak limper because then the blinds aren't as suspicious of a steal.

[Zetack]

My NL experience is with the most micro of micro games, so take it for what its worth...

You can play a lot looser overall than in limit, if you can get in cheaply a lot. But the larger range of hands you play are the ones that can flop really big. Plus you don't need the same number of callers since you can build a very big pot with a small number of other players.

So your suited connectors are good. Your pairs are good. Basically anything that can flop really big. You can afford to try to limp in with em and dump em to raises, since again, you don't have to win your fair share of hands, you simply need to win a few big hands. In essence its less expensive to try and get in cheaply but fold away to a decent raise than it is in limit since the pots you win are so um...limited...in limit. If you piss off too many chips speculating (gambling that you will have enough callers, that you won't get raised and re-raised PF) in limit you can't make it up. In NL you can.

You need to be able to lay down what you think is the best hand to the appropriate agression if its not a really big hand. The idea is to give yourself as many chances to make monsters as possible, without giving away your stack on a nice, but not huge hand like TPTK. Don't get me wrong, I love TPTK, but I don't want to be in for all of my stack with it.

The amazing thing in micro NL is how often your oponents will let you come in cheaply, chase your draws cheaply, and still pay off big when you hit your monster.

Also, although as I said I think you can try to get in cheaply with hands that can flop big like pairs and suited connectors and suited one gappers from any position if you can get away from them easily, even more so than in limit you have keep in mind position, position, position.

The converse of the above of course is when you have strong non monster hands, you absolutely don't want to let your opponents chase their monsters cheaply. But don't get tied to the pot. Its ok to lose some decent sized pots, because you are aiming to take down the really big pots.

Or so it seems to me, down here at the micros.

--Zetack