Starting hands in No Limit compared to Limit

I really don't know much about starting hands in No Limit. In a normal, full No limit ring game, would the correct strategy be to play the same starting hands as in a full limit ring game?

Thank you for your replys!!

[Shandrax]

Besides the usual premium hands you should definitely play small pairs, because you get huge implied odds on them. It is pretty similar with suited connectors, although they are not as easy to play as small pairs. With suited connectors you simply don't flop made hands often enough, so they will be more expensive.

Since you can protect your hands in NL, top pair hands go up in value and speculative hands go down in value. Ironically this is also the way how to win small pots and lose big pots.

The starting hands are basically the same. You can call a typical raise with smaller pairs because you stand to win a lot when you hit your set. Axs and suited connectors, you want to see the flop as cheaply as possible and you want players in to build the pot, just like in limit. If you're the first one in a pot in NL you generally want to come in raising. Read Brunson, you'll get a good feel for playing the game.

[AaronBrown]

In addition to the excellent replies so far, I would add that having the nuts is much more valuable at no limit versus limit. If there is even one possible set of pocket cards that could beat you, you play no limit differently, while in limit it makes very little difference.

Therefore, Aces have increased value in no limit compared to limit. However, most players overvalue Aces in limit, so they play about right if they move to no limit with no adjustment.

[newhizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you can protect your hands in NL, top pair hands go up in value and speculative hands go down in value. Ironically this is also the way how to win small pots and lose big pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont play all that much NL so i may be wrong, but isnt the exact opposite of this true?
speculative hands like small pairs and suited connectors have very little value in limit games, but because of the high implied odds in NL, these hands go up in value, am i right?

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides the usual premium hands you should definitely play small pairs, because you get huge implied odds on them. It is pretty similar with suited connectors, although they are not as easy to play as small pairs. With suited connectors you simply don't flop made hands often enough, so they will be more expensive.

Since you can protect your hands in NL, top pair hands go up in value and speculative hands go down in value. Ironically this is also the way how to win small pots and lose big pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is backwards. Hands like AJo and KJo that do fairly well in limit are absolute junk in no-limit. Hands like small pairs are fantastic because, if you flop a set vs. someone else's overpair/TPTK, you can often win a large pot postflop with a small preflop investment. Small suited connectors are generally quite good, too, as they usually hit the flop very hard or not at all so you rarely make a 2nd best hand that pays off the best hand but often can make an small straight or two pair that can get paid by top pair or an overpair.

Reading Aaron's posts, I'll bet he just cleans up when he plays. I want to see the man in action.
I forgot to add, it's very easy to trap in no-limit. In fact, that's a big part of many games.

[CurryLover]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you can protect your hands in NL, top pair hands go up in value and speculative hands go down in value.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally incorrect, as has already been pointed out by other replies. Im fact, things are the other way round.

Speculative hands go up in value since the implied odds are bigger at NL. However, you can't commit too much of your chipstack pre-flop on card like 78s, suited Aces, or small pocket pairs. Ciaffone and Reuben suggest the rule of 5 and 10. If you have to put in less than 5% of your stack with these hands then you should strongly consider doing so. If you have to put in more than 10% of your stack you should probably pass. Between 5% and 10% it is a judgement call. The idea is that you need to be able to win a huge pot if you flop a set or a flush or a straight or whatever - so you need to have plenty of chips left to bet after the flop. Of course, it is no use calling a raise in position with 67s if the raiser himself does not have plenty of chips - even if you do.

The big pairs (especially Aces) go up in value at NL. However, this is mainly because of the occasions that you manage to get all-in pre-flop against KK, QQ etc. In a deep stacked NL cash game, you must play AA very carefully after the flop if you haven't managed to get all-in. Sometimes in limit you might just shut your eyes and see the hand through to the end since you will only lose a few bets if you are beaten. In NL, what are you going to do with your Aces when your opponent smooth calls your flop and turn bets on a raggedy board and then raises you all-in on the river? I'm not saying you'd always pass - it is read dependent - but all you've got is one pair and you've got a decision that will cost you all your chips if an opponent has hit a set like his betting suggests. At limit you'd be much more inclined to call the last bet (even if you think there is a good chance you're beaten) than at NL when it is for your entire stack.

That's precisley why the small pairs and suited connectors go up in value at NL (provided the stacks are deep enough) - you can occasionally break an opponent holding a big pair if you hit a good flop with your 67s, 88 or whatever.

Contrary to the quote above, hands that can make top pair, top kicker actually are much less valuable in NL than in limit. By this, I mean hand like AK, AQ, AJ etc. The same is true for KQ, KJ etc. The reason for this is because having top pair in NL is nowhere near as good as it is in limit. It is true that you can 'protect your hand' more easily on the flop - this allows you to pick up a large percentage of the pots when you flop top pair. However, the x% of pots when you meet resistance after flopping top pair can prove very expensive and can sometimes end up with you losing your entire stack. In a deep stacked NL game you simply cannot take too much action with only top pair - if you end up getting your whole stack in on the flop or turn with only top pair you will usually find that you are beaten (although this is obviously dependent on your read). This is why top pair, top kicker type hands lose value in NL - because they are likely to either win a small pot, or lose a big one (the poster I quoted did allude to this, perhaps without realising its significance).

Of course, being suited makes a difference because of the implied odds of flopping the nut flush. So a hand like AKs both gains and loses value at NL. The high card strength aspect of hands like this loses value since your opponents get implied odds from you. On the other hand, the fact that it is suited increases in value since you are getting much higher implied odds than at limit.

Most of the above is explained much better than my efforts in Ciaffone and Reuben's excellent Pot Limit and No Limit Poker. This is an amazing book.

By the way, thinking in terms of 'hand groups' (as in the Sklansky hand rankings etc.) is not really very useful even at limit poker. At NL, a 'hand ranking' way of thinking is absolutely no use at all. You just don't think about things in this way in a NL game. Everything is much more situational - things like position, table image, reads on your opponent, stack size, game texture etc. are hugely important in deciding what hands to play and whether to call or raise with them. For example, think about how you'd play QQ in a NL game:

Most of the limit books put this in the 'top group' of hands and would suggest that you raise or re-raise with this hand. You would probably not be too wrong if you always followed this advice at limit (there are exceptions - I am trying to make a general point here though).

At NL, it is totally different. There is no 'general strategy' for what to do with QQ - or even a strategy that you can follow most of the time. Each and every time you get dealt QQ you must make a decision based on all the factors that are relevant at the time, not based on what a book tells you to do.

For example, you may be on the button and facing a raise with QQ. Perhaps the raiser is a very tight player and has raised from UTG. What are you doing with your QQ? The (limit) books say to re-raise, but this might result in losing your whole stack in this situation. The UTG raiser might very well have AA or KK (after all, he is a tight player who has raised UTG) and have you in terrible shape. True, he might also have a few other hands that you can beat (at the moment), but do you want to take the risk and raise? Probably not. So you should throw your hand away? Well, again probably not. You are not definitely beaten, and you have position on your opponent. Also, even if you knew (perhaps his ears only waggle in that way when he has Aces [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) your opponent had AA or KK, you might still call if there were plenty of chips still to bet. You'd be hoping the flop came Q high and you could break the overpair with your top set. But, if either you or your opponent were short or medium stacked you'd not be able to play this way if you knew an opponent had AA since the implied odds would not be there. So, in this example you are taking into account a range of factors that go way beyond what hand you have - your position, the nature of your opponent, your read on opponent, the position of your opponent and how this reflects his likely starting hands, the stack sizes of both you and your opponent etc. None of this can be worked out by referring to Sklansky's hand rankings and seeing that QQ is in 'group 1'.

[Ghazban]

Fantastic post.

suited connectors are much more valuable in no limit, cause you usually need a big hand to win in the frequent multi player showdown at the end. 10J suited is the nuts. AK needs to hit, as it will be shown down at the end. it's remarkable how different are starting hand strenght at different limits.