No-Limit vs. Limit
Okay, so I've started to pick up my online play recently, specifically my online single-table tournament play. I'd say that after 30 or so single-table tournaments (at $10-$20 levels), I can pretty safely say that I'm profitable limit-hold'em player. I also picked up an 8th place finish in a limit hold'em multi-table with 250 players.
The thing is...
I seem to be AWFUL at no-limit! I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong? Is there some tournament strategy subtlety that I can't wrap my head around? My "successful recipe" (here's something new...) of playing tight early and being aggressive late just isn't seeming to get the job done. What's up?
And I realize that I'm probably not going to get a complete diagnosis, but I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.
Thanks!
The thing is...
I seem to be AWFUL at no-limit! I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong? Is there some tournament strategy subtlety that I can't wrap my head around? My "successful recipe" (here's something new...) of playing tight early and being aggressive late just isn't seeming to get the job done. What's up?
And I realize that I'm probably not going to get a complete diagnosis, but I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.
Thanks!
Comments
The transition from limit to no-limit is not easy.
A few thoughts to get started:
1. Forgetting about no-limit temporarily, why do you think you do well at limit tournaments?
2. On the flip side of this, what sorts of things do you see other players at limit tournaments often doing badly?
3. Back to comparing the limit & no-limit tournaments, do you feel your opponents are more skilled at one of these formats than the other?
4. How do you reach the conclusion that you "seem to be AWFUL at no-limit"? Simply from your NL tournament results? Are you noticing any specific mistakes you are making? Are you often coming across situations where you feel you don't know what the right play is? (Moreso than in limit say?)
Also, aside from the main discussion, this sort of statement
doesn't cut it. You have to keep track of your results *exactly* in poker to correctly and honestly guage how you're doing. (Dave Scharf will be so proud of me!)
Of course, I'm not saying that you need to tell us specific amounts or anything like that (that's your own business), but you do need to be honest and accurate with yourself, and be able to make crisp statements like "I know I am a profitable 1/2 Chicago High, 1/2 Follow the Queens player at the $0.05/$0.10 limit."
The last part was not supposed to be some kind of "I don't believe you" rant... I'm just trying to make a general point here.
ScottyZ
Of course I can't give you any kind of diagnosis since we've never played together, but I like the topic. I've been playing almost nothing but $1-2 NL and the occasional NL tourney for quite a while, and I've completely lost my sense for limit games. They really are two different animals.
I don't know if there is anything particular to tournaments, but for sure draw hands play very differently in NL. One mistake that limit players usually make is that they don't bet enough to protect their hand against a draw when they have the best hand but could be drawn out on. For instance, if you flop top two but there are two hearts on board, and connectors -- say QhJc7h. Unless you're up against a set you're good for now, but there are a lot of cards that could hurt you. Don't be greedy in a situation like this... put your money in and make them pay full price and then some on their draws. If you are first to act then you have to bet at least the pot, probably 1.5 to 2 times the pot to really discourage them.
The flip side of this is that you don't want to play draw hands against someone who knows how to bet this way... unless it is a well-hidden draw and you are
likely to get paid large if you do hit.
The other NL idea that comes into play is that if you are willing to commit a sizeable fraction of your stack to a bet, then it is often wise to push it all in right then. "Sizeable" and "often" and "wise" are of course open to interpretation. Usually, if you have to commit more than half your stack to make a point then you can push in. However, elsewhere on the forum Dave Scharf gave an example where it was better to flat call and then push the rest in on the flop no matter what came. Tournament play adds some complications because of the need to "survive and fight another day" rather than just reach into the pocket for the billroll.
Overcalling, too, is far more dangerous in NL than limit. If the pot is raised preflop by someone who is not a cannon, and called by someone who is not a calling station, you have to be very careful to be the third one into the pot. I'm not sying you need good cards, you just have to have a plan for what you want from the flop, and stick with it.
With practice I think you'll find that NL offers a lot more opportuntities for tricky plays, and requires a lot more ability to read your opponents and put them on hands. For me, that makes it a much more interesting game.
Good Luck!
A few things:
1.) In response to whether or not I track my results, I would say that I'm quite meticulous in this regard. Actually, something that I've started tracking my results as broken down by time of day, and that's helped me realize when is a good time for pokering vs. when it's more profitable to turn on the TV.
2.) You've helped me identify a HUGE flaw in my no-limit game is that I overplay my draws. I've become obsessed with the "semi-bluff" (and it's close cousin, the semi-bluff check-raise), and use it to the point of fault. I hadn't fully grasped how essential it was to separate the value of draws between the two variations of hold'em.
3.) Another huge flaw in my no-limit game is definately overcalling. Again, this goes back to the value of drawing hands vs. made hands.
4.) Corollary(?): Position is way more important in NL. Way more. Way way way more. I heard it before, just hadn't figured out why until now.
A great point from a great post.
To elaborate, you want to give the drawing hands insufficient *implied* odds to make calling correct. This is a perfect example of how NL differs from limit, or even pot limit for that matter. Knowing when to overbet (sometimes outrageously) the pot is a key asset in NL.
Also in terms of protecting against a draw, there seem to be two schools of thought. If you flop a good hand, but a plausible draw is out there (say a 2 flush), some players prefer to bet big on the flop to make the draws pay. Others like to allow the turn card to come off cheaply, and then push a lot of money in on the turn if it bricks, or fold if the turn completes the apparent draw. Note that both of these styles accomplish what you want to do: cut down your opponent's implied odds. However, this is accomplished in two different ways. The first approach says "I'm going to make you pay to get there" and the second says "I'm not paying you off when you do get there". There are advantages and disadvantages to both of these styles, and this is important part of your play to vary; or else, for example, you'll get blown off every turn scare card by observant opponents if you're playing using the 2nd style all the time.
On the other hand, if it's not clear already, you should almost *never* bet with a draw in NL, and calling with a draw is almost never automatic. The difference between NL and limit is night and day in this respect. It is occasionally (though probably less than people think) correct to be the aggressor with a draw in limit, and most calls with (good) draws in limit are automatic.
In NL, you have to forget about semi-bluffing and stick to just plain bluffing. 8)
ScottyZ
stp