Where does the money come from in NL?

[RacersEdge]

In Limit, TPTK is a pretty big hand - and getting TPWK to call you down is a "bread and butter" play. In NL, the standard advice seems to be that TPTK is not nearly as good a hand compared to Limit. And in my play - basically online FR 25 and 50 NL seems to support that idea as I rarely get paid off by TPWK calling me down.

So in playing a TAG style, is NL a game of rarer events - i.e. waiting for 2 pair, sets, or better to win big pots (stacks) instead of grinding it in as in Limit?

NL seems to me right now to be a waiting game that is very trappy. Is this the right perception or am I likely missing certain aspects of the game?

[Grunch]

It's not that TPTK isn't a good hand in no-limit. It's not any more or less likely to win in no-limit than it is in limit. The difference is in how much value you can get with it. In limit you can play TPTK like its the nuts not because it is actually the nuts, but because if you're wrong your loss is limited. In no-limit the price of being wrong is much higher. So the result is that when you're playing a big pot with TPTK in no-limit, you sure as hell better be right. In limit, it's not as important.

There isn't just one style of no-limit play that works; although in reading the 2p2 no-limit forums you might get the idea that there is only one "right" style. But there are 2 basic philosophies in no-limit play: a tight philosophy and a loose philosophy. Both are geared towards exploiting mistakes in the opponent's, but they exploit different mistakes and therefore both get the money from different places. (Actually there is an overlap, as I will explain)

The tight style exploits the opponents' tendancies to overvalue marginal & 2nd-best hands. The money for this style comes from hands like TPTK when the opponent has TP 2nd K, or hands like sets when the opponent has TPTK. This is a value-based approach, or one that is based primarily om hand equity.

The loose style also leverages the value approach, and may be even better suited to doing so because the LAG's image is often one of a maniac or a fish, and so opponents are often more willing to overvalue their worse hands. But the loose player exploits another of the opponents' weaknesses: their inability to read hands & situations, and their tendancy to revert to a 1st-level game when faced with aggression. In other words, the loose player also leverages fold equity relentlessly in addition to hand equity. This style is much more difficult to play that the tight style because you need a new set of skills in order to make it work. Now not only do you need to have a clear understanding of relative & absolute hand strength as with the tight style, but you also need to be pretty good at knowing what your opponents have, what they are thinking, and how they will react.

So in short the money in no-limit comes from your opponents' mistakes. Depending on how you approach the game (and your experience) you will try to leverage different mistakes.

[diebitter]

wow, fantastic post.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
wow, fantastic post.

[/ QUOTE ]

[diebitter]

And while Grunch's post is outstanding, just a note (made by pokerboy in the FR forum) that there are several degrees of tight and loose, it's not just one or another. Harrington 1 covers this a little.

And really good players can play many of these degrees to suit the game they're in.

If you see someone whose HUD stats say 'tight' but they are playing loose successfully, or vice versa, make a note on that guy, and stay out of his way.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow, fantastic post.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[1p0kerboy]

There are also varying degrees of aggressiveness as well that can win at this game.

Some hyper-aggressive players do very well. And while this is a good strategy in a lot of games, it lacks some of the weapons that come with a more selective-aggressive approach, such as inducing bluffs and other plays like the rope-a-dope.

There are certainly many ways to win at this game. Each of them has pros and cons, and some are more successful in certain games/situations than others.

Great post Grunch.

[sweetjazz]

Grunch made a great post, but I think a couple of things can be added:

(1) A good player is adjusting his looseness/tightness based on the size of his stack and the stack size of the other active players. If there are a couple of shortstacks who are playing pretty loose, then you're looking to make one good pair hands and get it in. You might easily find that QTo is a better hand than 87s in this spot. I often play live and I'll sometimes buy in to the game as a somewhat short stack. I play tight, trying to find a spot to get it in with TPTK against a loose chaser who is willing to gamble with the size of my (currently modest) stack. The games being so soft, it's not unusual to amass a relatively large stack. And because there are so many people stacking off and rebuying, the rest of the table tends to get rather deep as well. Now I'll adjust and start playing more loosely in position. I'll try to exploit my tight image to steal some pots and of course try to get my stack in if I manage to hit a disguised hand.

(2) Part of NL is trapping and trying to win a big pot. So the counterstrategy is also part of NL -- applying pressure to win pots by denying your opponents the odds to chase to their potential strong hands. This is a strategy you can employ whether you are tight or loose preflop. Just because you don't play a lot of hands before the flop doesn't mean you can't steal pots in the right spot; indeed, because your range is tighter your opponent (particularly if he is mediocre enough to not want to stack off easily but not good enough to make moves -- someone who I see a lot in live games) is often going to release his hand to your pressure.

The way I approach NL is that there are three ways to win pots:

(1) Taking them down somewhere along the way (often winning with complete air or with a marginal one pair hand is almost the same because you couldn't call a big raise in either case -- though obviously your one pair hand has some added value in that it may win a showdown in a small pot or it may improve to a strong hand)

(2) Winning a small pot with a marginally strong hand (perhaps TPTK, perhaps two pair on a board that 3flushes and 3straights on the turn).

(3) Winning a big pot those times when I make a really strong hand.

One of the first things I do at a table is assess which ways I am likely to win money and what hand strength constitutes a "big" hand and what constitutes a "bluffing" hand. If the table is playing crazy aggressive, then most of my money will be won via (3) and my standard for a "big" hand will likely include TPTK on a lot of boards (plus I'll be looking to commit more chips earlier in the hand in this kind of game). If the table is playing semitight and passive, then a lot of my money will be won via (1). A hand like TPTK is more likely to be played to try to end up in scenario (2).

I suspect a lot of players are marginal winners or worse because they don't know how to win pots in each of these three ways. Typically, they either try to win money only by (3) and don't steal enough pots [which is important not just for the money won immediately but also for getting action when you do hit a big hand] and give up too many marginal hands too easily; or they try too hard at (1) and end up putting in too much money with marginal hands and get trapped too frequently by tight players. NLHE is a game of yin and yang -- the best players seem to use a balanced approach that always has their opponents on their toes and guessing about what's going on. The weak players are the ones whose strategy is too one-dimensional and consequently easily adjusted to.

* Disclaimer: I am relatively new to NL so any or all of the above could be complete poo, something I allegedly fling on a frequent basis.

[jstill]

good thread...

one kinda tagential thought I had when I first saw OPs question was that if your only seeing villains make bad plays when they CD TPWK you're probably in a bad, tight limit game (though seeing them cold call with hands like A2 K8 ect is obviously comforting to know u have an edge). But if their defending those hands and not giving too much action postflop but are showing them down thats not neccessarily a sign you can make tons of loot. Meanwhile villains ck calling and stacking off 3 streets with TPWK is a great sign.

NL is kinda a waiting game (which is why limit players think its more boring, and why everyone plays more tables in NL than limit since non trivial decisions are less abundant), but really limit is like that too. I dont get why people look at limit as grinding and NL as waiting, its basically the same thing in my eyes. Just add more tables and they ll be comparable in that regard (having to make decisions). But yes NL is a game where mistakes on later streets will get you into trouble obviously (refering to ur trappy comment), which is why we are forced often to only try to get 2 streets of value with TPTK ect and exercise pot control in many situations.

[sethypooh21]

Nice taxonomy, sweetjazz.

In my (limited, I'm a transitioning pooflinger as well) experience as well as study, a big key to NL is your (1) stealing - and the key to doing it successfully is to A) not invest more than is necessary (ie bet the least he won't call) and B) not get wedded to your bluff. Part of the reason (1) is important is the fact that you have been seen to steal is fairly essentially to getting you well payed off when you do hit a big hand (3).