Different versions of Sklansky Hand Groups for limit and no limit?

[MMagicM]

In "Hold 'Em Poker" on page 18 is says:

"The list would have to be substantially altered for no limit games."

This is the only version I found:

Group 1: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs
Group 2: TT, AQs, AJs, KQs, AK
Group 3: 99, JTs, QJs, KJs, ATs, AQ
Group 4: T9s, KQ, 88, QTs, 98s, J9s, AJ, KTs
Group 5: 77, 87s, Q9s, T8s, KJ, QJ, JT, 76s, 97s, Axs, 65s
Group 6: 66, AT, 55, 86s, KT, QT, 54s, K9s, J8s, 75s
Group 7: 44, J9, 64s, T9, 53s, 33, 98, 43s, 22, Kxs, T7s, Q8s
Group 8: 87, A9, Q9, 76, 42s, 32s, 96s, 85s, J8, J7s, 65, 54, 74s, K9, T8

So what would have to be substantially altered for no limit?

[raze]

I would say the whole list would have to be overhauled because of enormous difference between the mechanics of LHE and NLHE.

If you really want to see the hands broken down into groups, I'm pretty sure you can find it in NLHE Theory & Practice by Sklansky and Miller.

[gregorio]

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/artic...-standards.html

[phydaux]

The list gets altered according to both position and effective stack size. Some hands play better with effective stacks of less than 40BB, some play better with effective stacks of over 100BB.

Adjusting to effective stack size is one of the key skills of NL poker.

[MMagicM]

Thanks for the answers, but maybe my question wasn't specific enough:

Hold 'Em Poker from Sklansky solely addressed limit hold 'em. The assumptions he makes before listing the hand groups imply, that there is an according list for no limit hold 'em. However, I did not find another version of that list on the internet and even in Phil Gordon's "Poker: The Real Deal", that clearly only covers no limit, the printed list is exactly the same.

So, what are the hands that would have to be moved into another group if the game switches from limit to no limit?

Otherwise, why would Sklanksy make such a statement if both lists were identically?

[gregorio]

There is no list similar to Sklansky's LHE starting hands for NL.

[phydaux]

Yeah, with a fixed betting limit it is fairly easy to quantify the relative strength of a particular two card holding.

With no betting limit, there are many factors that have to be taken into consideration.

[LAG Heuer]

[ QUOTE ]
The list gets altered according to both position and effective stack size. Some hands play better with effective stacks of less than 40BB, some play better with effective stacks of over 100BB.

Adjusting to effective stack size is one of the key skills of NL poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give some examples of hands that play better short stack ?

Thx

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you give some examples of hands that play better short stack ?

[/ QUOTE ]

When effective stacks are small then hands that can make top pair with a good kicker, hands like AJo & KQo, play well. The idea is to raise big pre-flop, hit top pair and then go all-in on the flop.

When stacks are deep then hands that can take advantage of implied odds, hands like 55 & 87s, play well. The idea here is to see a cheap flop, occationally flop a monster and bust another deep stack.

One set of hands works best when you can take advantage of implied odds, the other works best when you can deny implied odds.