Different style required for limit?

[JH1]

I've been trying out some limit games for a change and I notice that you pretty much have pot odds to call just about every hand if you hit any part of the board, which A LOT of people are doing.

I try to play my same style that I play in NL, playing mostly premium hands, pocket pairs, and adding suited connectors and Axs in LP.

This has not been working out for me. I usually end up with TP/TK or something similar due to my starting hands, but it seems that if the pot is multiway I can't make my opponent make a mistake by drawing out even if they've got bottom pair, and I find it to be quite rare that TP/TK or even 2 pair hold out unless everyone else missed the flop and turn. I see a lot of weird 2 pairs showing up most of the time.

For instance, raising QQ+ seems counteractive to me since the pot will be bigger post-flop and even less of a mistake for them to draw out against my 1 pair.

Do I need to change my starting hands to hands that make stronger but much more rare made hands? ie: play more suited connectors, gap connectors, any Axs/Kxs/Qxs from any position and then c/c down with a draw considering that I always have pot odds?

I am just struggling to see any type of strategy in limit because it's rarely a mistake to draw out. Any book suggestions would be great too.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been trying out some limit games for a change and I notice that you pretty much have pot odds to call just about every hand if you hit any part of the board, which A LOT of people are doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't true. In a multiway pot, you often don't have the odds to chase with a low pair on the flop, particularly if some of your outs might give someone a flush or a straight. You don't know that hitting two pair will be good enough to win the pot, and you often are not closing the action, so you don't know whether someone behind you will raise.

It is much more common not ot have the correct odds to draw on the turn.

Although when you raise, any decent draw will have the odds, people also draw with backdoor draws or nothing. In a hand posted in the Small Stakes Limit forum, 5 people capped an A93 rainbow flop. What did they all have? The hero had bottom set, and maybe there was an ace or two out there, but someone probably put in a lot of bets with king high, or a low pocket pair.

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, raising QQ+ seems counteractive to me since the pot will be bigger post-flop and even less of a mistake for them to draw out against my 1 pair.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are concentrating too much on whether your opponent is making mistakes. Don't forget that you have to avoid making mistakes, too. Failing to raise preflop with QQ is a large mistake, and it will only sometimes give your opponent the chance to make a small mistake.

Let's suppose someone took $1 out of your pocket, and threw it into a pond. Would you chase after it, knowing that you'll get wet, and will only find it 10% of the time? I wouldn't. Suppose someone took $10,000 from you, and threw it into a pond. Again, would you get soaked for a 10% chance to get it back? I would. In which scenario would you be better off, the one where you feel like you have to chase after the money, or the one where you can give up? You are better off when you don't have as much money invested. You would prefer that your opponent not raise good hands like QQ, even if it would give you a correct call later. You should raise with QQ because it wins more money, even if it may tie your opponents to the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
I try to play my same style that I play in NL, playing mostly premium hands, pocket pairs, and adding suited connectors and Axs in LP.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should not be playing the same set of hands. You aren't going to make much with a low pocket pair unimproved. Fold 22, 33, 44, and 55 outside of late position and the blinds, except in the loosest of games, with 7 or 8 players seeing the flop. Often fold low pairs in late position anyway, if there are 1-3 limpers.

Suited connectors are other hands that are played in NL primarily for the implied odds. You can't get paid off as much in limit, so fold those unless it will be a family pot, or you can make the pot heads-up by raising.

You probably are not playing enough hands with good pair value such as ATo and KJo.

[ QUOTE ]
This has not been working out for me. I usually end up with TP/TK or something similar due to my starting hands, but it seems that if the pot is multiway I can't make my opponent make a mistake by drawing out even if they've got bottom pair, and I find it to be quite rare that TP/TK or even 2 pair hold out unless everyone else missed the flop and turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
TPTK holds up a lot. You may have selective memory. If your hand will hold up 1/2 of the time, but you are putting in only 1/6 of the money, then for every dollar you put in, you expect to get three back. That's a great situation, and it is much better to be on that side than to be chasing a weak draw.

[ChrisV]

You REALLY need to read Small Stakes Holdem, by Miller, Sklansky and Malmuth. It deals with exactly the problem you're having - how to play in games where the pots are often big and multiway.

The basic ideas can be summed up as follows:

- Play hands which make big hands (pairs, Ax suited, etc). Avoid hands like KT. These hand selection rules will be familiar to you from NL.

- Don't make tight folds in big pots

- Try to manipulate the betting in such a way that you can deny your opponents correct pot odds. One example might be not raising on the flop with an overpair in a big pot because not even the double bet will price your opponents out, and instead waiting till the turn to raise so you can shut them out with a double big bet.

There's much more, though, and I really recommend you get hold of the book as it's one of the best poker books I've read.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
You probably are not playing enough hands with good pair value such as ATo and KJo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really disagree with this, although it partly depends on whether we're talking about 6-max or full ring games. AT and KJ are OK hands at 6 max, but at full ring in a loose game they're pretty awful. Anyway I doubt OP's problem is that he isn't running enough of those hands.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Often fold low pairs in late position anyway, if there are 1-3 limpers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is frankly terrible advice. Folding a low pair behind 3 limpers is an error of epic proportions.

As I said, maybe OP should clarify whether he means 6-max or full ring. My advice about playing hands like suited aces is bad in all but the very loosest 6-max games. 6-max is largely about playing good hands (i.e. containing higher cards than your opponents) and having position. But the impression I got from OP was that he was having his TPTK hands overwhelmed by a swarm of limpers, which implies full ring. In that case you need to look to the advice in SSHE, and advice like playing ATo more and folding small pairs is shocking.

[ChrisV]

Also (and I didn't intend to quadruple post, but here we are)...

OP is correct that quite often when one looks back over hands, opponents had the correct odds to draw to two pair or whatever at every point in the hand. However, the error made by these opponents is twofold:

(1) A preflop error. Their hand is not good enough to play. If you commence your analysis at the point where they've already flopped a pair, you will not notice this mistake.

(2) Your hand might not have been as vulnerable to theirs. For instance, on a flop like KT3, they might have odds to draw to their five outs with a hand like T7 if you have AK. But if you have AT, or KT, or 33, they're going to be in diabolical trouble.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
advice like playing ATo more and folding small pairs is shocking.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you are shocked. Maybe you will learn something from it. When you recognize that you are wrong, please have the decency to post a public retraction, since you publicly declared that my correct advice was terrible.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Often fold low pairs in late position anyway, if there are 1-3 limpers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is frankly terrible advice. Folding a low pair behind 3 limpers is an error of epic proportions.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it isn't. Maybe it's right to limp with a low pair after 3 limpers, but it isn't a large mistake to fold it, if at all.

A pair like 22 is much weaker than a pair like 66, particularly against loose opponents who may be playing hands like A4s, who will be ahead of 22 when they flop a flush draw, but behind 66. 22 is much more vulnerable to getting counterfeited. It's very easy to overlook the difference. If 66 is not clearly profitable, then 22 usually will lose money.

If you have statistics which show that 22 wins a lot of money in late position, please share them to back up your assertion that folding low pairs would be an error of "epic proportions." Otherwise, it seems you are repeating a common misconception. Here are statistics from real games which show 22 losing -.13 BB per hand on the button (even more favorable than late position), while 66 wins 0.09 BB/hand on the button. The difference of 0.22 BB/hand is huge.

The consensus of the limit forums has been to fold low pairs in early position, while the consensus of the NL forums has been to play them. It is correct to point out that a NL player who is playing limit may tend to overvalue low pairs.

I have extensive experience with both limit and NL, and I correctly pointed out some of the major differences between the preflop hand evaluation in limit versus NL, where someone playing NL will err playing limit. In NL, a single player might pay you off enough to make up for all of the times you miss with a speculative hand, but in limit, you need a large number of players to make the pot larger when you hit.

[ QUOTE ]
you need to look to the advice in SSHE

[/ QUOTE ]

SSHE is a great book, although not perfect. You should reread SSHE, and better understand the advice given there, and the context.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Almost no online games are as loose as the loose games described in SSHE, which means that you shouldn't use the loose game recommendations for playing low pairs. That was one of the common complaints about SSHE here when it came out, that Ed Miller had little online experience, and based the book on ultraloose live games. People don't go to a casino to fold. It is instructive to compare the loose game recommendations with the tight game recommendations, e.g., to see that SSHE recommends playing more loosely in loose games than tight games. However, you can't use the loose game recommendations directly online except for pennies.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] SSHE does say that ATo and KJo gain value against loose players, and are often quite playable. The PokerRoom stats agree that these hands do better in looser, lower stakes games than in tighter, higher stakes games. Are you sure you aren't just assuming that SSHE agrees with you?

The difference between a tight game and a loose game is not whether people will play AK. People will almost always play AK. The difference is whether people will play A8 and J9, and those hands help AT and KJ more than they hurt them. That people play junk makes AT and KJ clearly profitable in low stakes games.

The consensus of the limit forums is to raise AJo UTG, 10 handed. This would be suicidal in NL. Hands like AJo and KQo in early position, and ATo and KJo in middle positions, are much more playable in limit than NL. The common pots against weaker hands are more important in limit than the few times you will be dominated. In NL, you will tend to lose large pots or win small ones with those hands. These hands are never fantastic, but they are profitable in limit at times when they are unprofitable in NL. This is a type of hand that NL players will undervalue when playing limit.

In addition, you should defend the blinds much more frequently in limit than in NL, you should 3-bet much more frequently in limit and rarely cold-call, and you should more frequently raise and value bet postflop in limit than in NL.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are statistics from real games which show 22 losing -.13 BB per hand on the button (even more favorable than late position), while 66 wins 0.09 BB/hand on the button. The difference of 0.22 BB/hand is huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

And 33 is shown as winning 0.05BB, while 44 loses 0.04BB. This difference - 40% of the recorded difference between 22 and 66 - is presumably accounted for by the extra luckiness of threes as compared to fours. In any case, a general statistic like this is completely inapplicable to the question of whether 22 should be played after three limpers. My guess is that a lot of equity would be lost by players doing things like raising 22 after one limper.

[ QUOTE ]
The consensus of the limit forums has been to fold low pairs in early position, while the consensus of the NL forums has been to play them. It is correct to point out that a NL player who is playing limit may tend to overvalue low pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. I was basing my reply on OP's description of what was going wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I have extensive experience with both limit and NL, and I correctly pointed out some of the major differences between the preflop hand evaluation in limit versus NL, where someone playing NL will err playing limit. In NL, a single player might pay you off enough to make up for all of the times you miss with a speculative hand, but in limit, you need a large number of players to make the pot larger when you hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with all this...

[ QUOTE ]
However, you can't use the loose game recommendations directly online except for pennies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of assumed that OP was playing for pennies.

[ QUOTE ]
SSHE does say that ATo and KJo gain value against loose players, and are often quite playable. The PokerRoom stats agree that these hands do better in looser, lower stakes games than in tighter, higher stakes games. Are you sure you aren't just assuming that SSHE agrees with you?

The difference between a tight game and a loose game is not whether people will play AK. People will almost always play AK. The difference is whether people will play A8 and J9, and those hands help AT and KJ more than they hurt them. That people play junk makes AT and KJ clearly profitable in low stakes games.

[/ QUOTE ]

AT and KJ are fine in the right situation. My problem was with your assumption that OP wasn't playing them enough. For instance, he shouldn't be playing them UTG, nor to raises, generally. I would have assumed that OP would already be playing AT and KJ enough.

The impression I got from OP was that he was in a game that was hyper-loose and that top pair often wasn't winning. Given that, I was emphasising playing loose-game hands and hand protection methods.

To be honest I think this is all pissing into the wind until OP clarifies what kind of game he's playing in. If he's playing in a game which is generally say 3 players to the flop, then I'll agree with everything you've said. If he's playing in a game which is 5 to 6 players to the flop, then I stand by what I wrote.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here are statistics from real games which show 22 losing -.13 BB per hand on the button (even more favorable than late position), while 66 wins 0.09 BB/hand on the button. The difference of 0.22 BB/hand is huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

And 33 is shown as winning 0.05BB, while 44 loses 0.04BB.


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course there is some statistical noise. If you look at nearby positions, and nearby stakes, the trend is clear: Low pairs like 22 are significantly worse than middle pairs 66-88, and the middle pairs are not worth a lot. If you want, do a statistical regression. So, are low pairs quite profitable despite the PokerRoom statistics, so that folding would be "an error of epic proportions" as you say, which should make middle pairs unbelievably valuable, or are you overvaluing low pairs? Please try to come up with some statistics which support your claims, instead of just saying that my evidence is not completely bulletproof. Your word alone is not more reliable than my word plus statistics and arguments which support my position.

Please come up with something to support your position, or else retract your statements that my advice which is based on experience, logic, and statistics was "shocking" and "terrible." Sadly, that's probably expecting too much on the internet.

Overlimping after 4 or 5 limpers is probably fine, although not nearly as profitable as many players think it is. Overlimping in late position after 1 or 2 limpers is probably a mistake. Overlimping in late position after 3 limpers is tremendously profitable according to you, so that folding would be "an error of epic proportions," and it is often wrong, and at best marginal, according to me. Which of those fits the pattern?

[ QUOTE ]
I would have assumed that OP would already be playing AT and KJ enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a strange assumption. Why would someone used to NL, where ATo and KJo are trash, know to start playing AT and KJ enough? He says he doesn't play those hands: "I try to play my same style that I play in NL, playing mostly premium hands, pocket pairs, and adding suited connectors and Axs in LP." It sounds like he isn't even playing ATo in late position. He was considering adding other hands than these like suited kings and suited queens. Why would it be "shocking" and "terrible" to point out that big offsuit hands are profitably playable in limit a lot more than they are in NL? By the way, these are slightly profitable even in early position in microstakes limit games.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
So, are low pairs quite profitable despite the PokerRoom statistics, so that folding would be "an error of epic proportions" as you say, which should make middle pairs unbelievably valuable, or are you overvaluing low pairs? Please try to come up with some statistics which support your claims, instead of just saying that my evidence is not completely bulletproof. Your word alone is not more reliable than my word plus statistics and arguments which support my position.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't addressed my main point, which is that the statistics you produced aren't relevant to the issue at hand. The vast majority of situations with 22 don't involve having 3+ limpers to you, making the vast bulk of hands used to produce your statistics completely irrelevant. My position that folding is terrible is based on the fact that you are 7.5:1 to flop a set and are getting 5:1 immediate pot odds assuming SB calls, with big implied odds. I therefore don't expect much difference between 22 and 66 as most profits come from sets. The only difference will be if the set is counterfeited or oversetted. I don't have any statistics to back me up, but I'm not going to withdraw my comment that folding is terrible since I really believe that. I've lent my copy of SSHE to someone but if you consult that I'm 99% sure it will tell you to limp any pair behind 3 limpers. Sorry if I offended you but I'm calling it how I see it.

[ QUOTE ]
Overlimping after 4 or 5 limpers is probably fine, although not nearly as profitable as many players think it is. Overlimping in late position after 1 or 2 limpers is probably a mistake. Overlimping in late position after 3 limpers is tremendously profitable according to you, so that folding would be "an error of epic proportions," and it is often wrong, and at best marginal, according to me. Which of those fits the pattern?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, that's the pattern of unsupported statements you just made, right?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have assumed that OP would already be playing AT and KJ enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a strange assumption. Why would someone used to NL, where ATo and KJo are trash, know to start playing AT and KJ enough? He says he doesn't play those hands: "I try to play my same style that I play in NL, playing mostly premium hands, pocket pairs, and adding suited connectors and Axs in LP." It sounds like he isn't even playing ATo in late position. He was considering adding other hands than these like suited kings and suited queens. Why would it be "shocking" and "terrible" to point out that big offsuit hands are profitably playable in limit a lot more than they are in NL? By the way, these are slightly profitable even in early position in microstakes limit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. That last sentence overreaches a bit - profitable when played by who? If a beginning player is struggling in a loose holdem game, telling him to play more marginal top-pair type hands isn't best IMO. The game should be beatable even playing only premium hands, so clearly that isn't the fundamental problem.