Limit Versus No-Limit Strategic Differences - Part V: On the River

We have reached the end of my series on the major strategic differences between limit and no-limit hold'em. In this column, we will look at the differences after all of the cards are out.



By then, the best hand has been determined; there are no draws left. Therefore, your play has only these objectives:

• Maximizing profits for the winners

• Minimizing losses for the losers

• Attempting to win without the best hand



Both forms of hold'em offer opportunities for all of these strategic plays, but in vastly different proportions.



Only rarely do you hold the best possible hand after all of the cards are out. If you don't hold it, perhaps your opponent does. In fact, most of the time, not only does no one hold the nuts, but no one is even close. You will win many pots with one or two pair, which is very far from the nuts. This fact is critical for this discussion.



In limit, if you think you probably have the best hand, go ahead and bet it. This is particularly true against only one opponent, which is what most hold'em battles come down to.



Since, in limit, we are interested in the frequency with which things occur, betting on the river with what will often be the best hand, but may not always be the winner (termed "value-betting"), maximizes your profits. Yes, you will suffer losses, as well, when your hand is not the best and you are called or even raised, but your opponent will often call, either hoping you are bluffing or because he believes he may have the best hand even if yours is good enough to bet.



Most limit hold'em texts make the point that when your opponent bets the river, you are often getting terrific odds for your call. If the pot has nine big bets in it after his bet, your call needs to be correct only 10 percent of the time to break even. Over 100 hands, if you are wrong 89 times and right 11 times, you will show a significant profit (.11 big bets per hand). Of course, if you fold every time, you will not experience the pain of losing a bet on the river, but you also will give up this profit.



Your opponents understand this principle well, and therefore call frequently when they can beat only a bluff, hoping this is the one time in 10 you are bluffing. You need to take advantage of these light calls by making sure that you win this extra bet as often as possible when you do have some real value.



Bluffing, on the other hand, is more difficult in limit for the same reasons. It takes only one bet to call. This does not mean that bluffing has no place on the river, but it much less often succeeds. You must be able to convince your opponent that his call is futile despite the price the pot is offering him. However, because you are getting such great odds, bluffs can be profitable even if most of them fail.



Your bluff will be successful when you both have almost nothing (you both missed draws, but his hand is slightly better), or when he is nearly certain that your hand is better and therefore becomes unwilling to pay you off despite the pot odds. This is a tough sell, but of course you get to win an entire pot when your bluff works. Against the right opponent, bluffing can be quite profitable in limit, but you must use it very sparingly. If you bluff too often, many of your opponents will realize it and just call you down every time.



In no-limit, the situation is very different. Sometimes, your remaining stack (or your opponent's) will be equal to or less than the pot. If you bet, it will generally be for all of your chips. If you bet the pot all in on the river, you are giving your opponent 2-1 or better for his call. Because the pot is already decided, you must have the best hand more than half the time he calls to show a profit.



Far more interesting and difficult is the situation in which you and your opponent still have deep stacks. Here, river betting becomes a true art form, whereby you must rely on your assessment of the hands and your assessment of your opponent.



If you have the best hand, you may want to "sell" it. This means betting the largest amount that you believe your opponent will call. If the pot is $200 and he will call $100, it is better to bet the $100 and get called than $200 and watch him fold. On the other hand, he may be the type who would get suspicious and look you up if you bet $300, so betting $100 would leave $200 on the table. Many players bet too little in this situation because they want to make sure they win something, but it is a tough decision.



On the other hand, if you are last to act and decide to bet instead of check, you can be check-raised a large amount. This raise may cause you to fold a pot that you would have won. Unlike limit, in which you would have to call only one more bet, this raise could be significantly more than the pot, and, in fact, could be for all of your chips. If the pot is $200 and you decide to make a delicate value bet of $50, what do you do when you are raised $400? You have to read that situation when it happens, but more often than not, if you were just value-betting, you will have to fold.



This gives rise to a dilemma in no-limit that doesn't occur in limit: betting to pick up some money versus checking to avoid being bet (and possibly bluffed) out of a pot. Your ability to assess your opponent and his tendencies is critical here.



Interestingly, just as important is your opponent's view of you. If you are a rock (or he thinks you are), you generally should avoid value-betting. You will not get many loose calls, but you will get raised by big hands. Of course, a player who is just trying to push you around because of your rockiness may raise, but that still leaves you with a difficult decision. Conversely, if you are perceived as an action player, value-betting makes more sense, as other players believe that you frequently have nothing and will pay you off with some bluff-catchers that you can easily beat.



Because there are so many bets in no-limit that are hard to call even with very good hands, bluffing has much greater value. Certainly, it is a very high-risk play, as the bet size must be large enough to discourage a call, but the rewards can be large, as well. On the other hand, we have seen players fold to a small-bet bluff on the river, convinced that they were facing a "please call me" bet and did not want to pay it off. No-limit is highly situational, and an understanding of the players and their tendencies is critical.



Conclusion: This series has highlighted some of the strategic differences between limit hold'em and no-limit hold'em cash games at each point. (If you missed any part of this series, you can find it at CardPlayer.com.) As you have seen, your decisions depend on the form of the game.



Limit poker focuses primarily on frequency. If the play you are making will win a bet or two more often than it will lose a bet or two, you should make it.



No-limit success depends far less on frequency and more on those few occasions when large amounts of money are at stake. It does not help to win a few bucks here and there, only to lose your entire stack once or twice a night. You must understand the implications of each bet on your stack and on your opponents' stacks, and the probability that you will end up with the best hand. Even on the river, if you have deep stacks, your decisions in no-limit are delicate, and a wrong one can cost you dearly.



If you are going to switch back and forth between these two forms of hold'em, remember that you will have to switch your mindset and your strategies to be successful at both games.



Barry offers poker lessons tailored to the specific strengths and weaknesses of the individual student. Please visit his web site at http://www.barrytanenbaum.com/ or e-mail him at [email protected].