Limit vs No-Limit, and their outcast brother Pot-Limit

Obviously, Hold 'Em is the most popular game by far online. Where I play, there are hundreds of limit and no-limit games, compared with a few dozen stud and razz games. Tournaments are similarly skewed, with probably 80-90 percent hold 'em, with seven-card stud a very distant second.

I've tried both, and I thought that limit was the most profitable form of poker. But it's really more frustrating that NL, because there is no strategy to sizing one's bets to deter (or encourage callers). When you have a fantastic hand that's vulnerable, there isn't much to do besides bet it all the way and hope you're not drawn out on. I've switched to No-Limit and although I'm losing bigger, I'm also winning a lot bigger. It hurts when you go all in with kings, someone calls with ace-8, and he makes trip 8s on the river. It hurts a lot more in no-limit, but what you can win with a big hand more than makes up for it (so far).

As far as hold 'em varieties, one of my objections is that almost nobody plays pot-limit online. I suppose it's an in-between form of poker, with far greater risk than limit but far smaller pots on average than no-limit. It requires an in-between level of aggression compared to the other games as well. I'm often looking for a low-stakes pot-limit game but the tables are usually completely empty.

Pot-limit has of course flourished most noticeably in Omaha, where it can generate massive pots on par with any high-stakes No-Limit game. Just reading HighStakesReport on a daily basis, the eye-popping headlines usually come from Omaha, e.g.:

---

Ziigmund Tops Omaha Results with $260K win

thecranium scores $227K PL Omaha Win

---

I've also heard that side games at the big tournaments are sometimes played pot-limit because it can generate such juicy stakes with the huge raises and re-raises.

There are Bad Beats, and then there are Bad Beats

My trend lately has been to do splendidly in cash games, then lose it all on the entry fees for sit-and-go tournaments online. Today that trend continued. In the first tournament I just played poorly, calling with hands like A7 suited, and busted out early. In the second I played much better, and took a ton of verbal abuse from a crazed player who decided I was the enemy, and finish two off the money in an 18-handed tournament.

Following those bad stretches, I stepped down to a single-table $2 sit-n-go, practically the lowest stakes available. This would get me back on my feet, certainly.

After a long quiet stretch, I finally was dealt pocket aces. Even better, I was one off the button, so I hoped my raise would be read as just positional. I raised, and the button pushed all-in - perfect! I called and he turned over pocket kings. As even the rawest poker newbie (like me) knows, this is a situation known as a "two-outer" - the only cards that can realistically help me opponent are the remaining two kings. I should win at least 95% of the time in this scenario.

But each individual hand is a yes/no affair; it can't be won 95% of the time, it can only be won or lost.

So imagine my horror when the board comes:

J-Q-10-blank-Ace.

My three aces lose to an ace-high straight. I have never seen this particular bad beat before: the only worst thing I've seen is this kings-vs-aces matchup from the final table of the world series a few years ago. Mike Matusow hits a two-outer, then loses when the board gives running hearts. His king-high heart flush loses to an ace-high.

Reading Hands, with Help from Sklansky

I've read a number of books on poker, most of them dealing with no-limit tournament strategy. Harrington on Hold 'Em and Championship No-Limit and Pot-Limit are my favorites, but in reality I almost never play no-limit for cash or tournaments. Like most low rollers, I play limit hold 'em cash games online.

To anyone in this situation, I'd heartily recommend Sklansky's Hold 'Em Poker. Not the "For Advanced Players" book, although that's obviously great as well. But Hold 'Em Poker, a slim volume that I hesitated to pay 19 dollars for, is long on insight. The most fantastic part of the book is the hand-reading section.

I tried these principles playing online yesterday. Usually I could win by just thinking about my cards and calculating odds and outs. But like a beginner, I didn't really think about what the other players had. Applying Sklansky's heuristics, I was able to figure out that the player to my right had my A10s beat.

We both limped before the flop, which brought:

7♠8♣9♥

Not a bad flop, I had two overcards and the high end of a draw. I bet and he called. The next card was:

J♦

I bet and he raised. There's only one thing it could be: he had Q10.

To my great shame, I did not fold but called him down. Reading hands is fantastic but without conviction to fold it's worthless.

Mission Statement

This blog is about poker. Poker at the ultra-low stakes, 10 and 20 cent hold 'em games online at absolutepoker. And poker as a perspective on risk, chance and the balance between skill and luck in life.

The inspiration for this blog's title is, of course, the 1988 World Series of Poker final hand, where Johnny Chan check-called Erik Seidel with a queen high straight against top pair. This particular play was immortalized in the film Rounders, so it's quite widely known now. You can watch the entire last hand here.

Chan's play is the essence of beautiful poker: knowing your opponents, using guile and deception, and being patient in an exciting situation. I'm not sure if I could have resisted betting big with this hand; Chan, one of the most aggressive players ever, made a small continuation bet on the flop to induce a raise, "thought" for a long time, and then called Seidel's bets all the way to the river.

Test message

This is the first post. Just testing.