SSHE

[lmw]

Hello all,
This is my first post here so please be gentle if am asking a question that is already covered. I recently started reading SSHE by Sklansky, Miller, and Malmuth and am wondering how i would need to adjust the strategy promoted in this book to a small stakes no limit game.
It seems to me that a fixed limit game will occasionally afford you the opportuinty to know you'll have the odds to draw to your speculative hands after the flop whereas there is no such guarantee in a No limit game. Or is there? Thank you in advance for your help in answering this question.

[Andy B]

If you're playing no-limit, I suggest that you read a no-limit book. Some good ones:

Harrington on Hold'em by Dan Harrington

How Good is Your Pot-Limit Hold'em? by Stewart Reuben

Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Ciaffone and Reuben

[K C]

First, lmw, it seems you've been holding out on us. I see this is your second post here, not your first.

I'm not really sure what type of odds you're referring to here, but let's take a quick look at the differences beween the two forms of poker. Pot odds aren't going to be any different of course, since you're comparing the odds of your hand, the cost of continuing, and the amount of money that's in the pot. Generally though, you won't get as favorable pot odds to draw to in limit, but the implied odds you'll usually be getting are going to be higher. Implied odds and effective odds are going to be more of a guess in NL, but we still will have some idea of what future betting may be like. It comes down to trying to figure out how much it will cost you to chase, what your chances are, and how much you will probably gain if you hit the hand.

Let's say you have the nut flush draw on the flop, it costs you $10 to call, and there is $30 in the pot now. Sklansky uses this example in The Theory of Poker to help illustrate effective odds, but we'll assume the game is NL and see how this effects things.

What we need to do for effective odds is to look to what our chances of hitting the hand in either round left, and also figure in what it will cost us to do so. Down to one opponent at limit, acting last, in this example it will cost us $30. In NL though we need to figure out what the cost of both the rounds will be, and add them together, the same way you would for limit, only it's a little more of a guess.

With implied odds, the same thing is going to need to be done, but what we're after is our cost versus our potential gain. If the person likely bets the same thing when he has a hand, then we're going to know that it's likely he'll bet 10 on the turn and 10 on the river. It costs us $20 to play then, in other words, and there's $30 in the pot now, plus the $20 that the opponent will probably put in, and we figure we can probably put in a raise of $10 along the way. So it's now: risk 20 to make 60. I've got roughly a 40% chance of winning, so in .4 cases I'll make $40 (the net profit, $60-$20), which equals $16, and in .6 of cases I'll lose $20, which equals ($12). So I've got a positive EV of $4 for the play.

So to sum up, the thinking is the same, the only thing that is different is the cost and gain that is expected, based on attempting to determine what the future bet levels may be.

KC
http://kingcobrapoker.com

[lmw]

Thank you for your very infomative response. I haven't been holding out on you. I copy and pasted this post in two different sections of the forum. I hope that isn't against the rules. In the live NL games i play in, it's easy to see how i would have proper odds to make calls with drawing hands because the bets on the flop thru the river are usually much smaller than the pot and the fairly loose nature of the games gives me good implied odds with almost any draw and great implied odds on deceptive draws like sets and double belly buster straights. Where i have been having trouble is in the online games I play. The bets in these games are generally pot sized bets on each turn giving me horrible effective odds right? In these games would i need to fold any flush draw that couldn't win with out the flush to a heads up opponent i didn't think would pay me off if i hit. the initial pot size plus his pot sized bet plus my pot size call would give me 3-1 pot odds right? Then i would need to get another bet at least 1/3 of the size of the pot once i've called to show 0 EV for this play with my +ev coming from any bet i get my opponent to make or call once i've hitover 1-3 the size of the pot on the turn or river. If i knew i couldn't get this payoff the call would have -ev right, but on the other hand if i knew i could get the 1/3 pot sized bet or more once i hit the call would have +ev right? Would having just one other caller remove my dependence on getting paid off once i hit? This thinking really does make sence to me right now so if i am wrong please tell me.

But about the book, i guess what i am worried about is some of the recommendations especially in what hands to raise assume that even if your raise leaves you heads up on the flop the maximum bet your opponent can make would be 1/4 the pot, giving you the odds to draw to a flush or OESD if you hit it on the flop and had no other outs to win. In a NL game where you can't assume the 1/4 pot bet, it seems like raisng could leave you heads up in a situation where you can only profit from multiway action.

[BasketballNYC]

One small error there. You said he bets the pot and you are getting 3-1 pot odds. No, you only count what is in the pot and his bet, NOT YOUR CALL. If there are $10 in and he bets $10, you need to put in $10 to win $20 that is not yours. You are only getting 2-1.

[ACW]

Hand vulnerability is much more important at pot limit and no limit.

SSHE talks about hands which are ahead on the flop but likely to lose on the river. At limit, the cost to find out whether you got drawn out on isn't that high, so you
can often just check-call and hope if a scare card hits on the river.

At pot limit or no limit, check-calling the river could be very expensive so you'll either have to call when behind or get bluffed out of some pots. The only real defence to this dilemma is to not put much money into vulnerable pots.
The exception would be if you can get them all-in while they're underdogs.

[K C]

lmw - I was only kidding about the holding out thing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Did look pretty funny though with the "my first post" and it saying you had 2 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Generally, you will be drawing less at NL than limit, and especially if the price is high. Think of it this way. What do you want to do if you are looking to protect your hand? Make them pay for their draws. So if they are doing that to you, obvously you need to be more careful.

I wouldn't worry too much about effective odds too much here - this is a tool for figuring out the overall chances of hitting on either street versus the cost. This can be helpful though if you know enough about your opponent that you can have a good idea about what he will bet. For instance, if he usually bets the pot. If he's doing that though, the cost of the second card is going to be higher, so you need to look for the right odds on the turn and not worry about the river that much. On the other hand, if the opponent tends to follow his bets on the turn with what he bet on the river, the effective odds picture will look a lot better. You need to be careful in guessing though if you're using effective odds as a reason to stay in to see the turn, because a lot bigger bet there when you don't hit can put an end to your plan pretty quick.

Drawing in a wild kind of game like the one you're in can be profitable, but you've got to pick your spots more. You're going to need several opponents in the pot with betting like that. Let's take an example of a case where you have a flush draw on the flop giving you 9 outs. You've got roughly 1 chance in 5 of hitting it on the turn. In terms of pot odds you're going to need 4:1, but that's the problem with pot odds - they don't take into account the additional money you'll make if you hit. You can think through what the implied odds might be, but this is going to depend on your opponents, so it's hard to come up with a hard and fast rule here. You can very often count on additional earnings if you hit though, so add to the expected pot size whenever you feel it's appropriate.

KC
http://kingcobrapoker.com

[lawfive]

What limits are considered "SSH"??

[swede123]

Post deleted by swede123

[swede123]

[ QUOTE ]
What limits are considered "SSH"??

[/ QUOTE ]

3-6 or maybe 4-8 might be considered the upper limits of small stakes. I know that Malmuth talks about limiting the "small stakes forum" to games up to 15-30, but personally I think this is beyond the scope of the discussion in SSH. Then again it all depends on the ability of the players you play with. If you're playing a 200-400 game with a bunch of loose fish the concepts in SSH would apply perfectly =)

Cheers,

Swede

***edit, sorry about the double post***