No-Limit Versus Limit Thinking

Three of my best poker pals have pretty much given up limit hold'em for no-limit hold'em. My buddy, "The best no-limit hold'em player you never heard of," has successfully made the change and is making oodles of bucks in his no-limit endeavors. My writing partner, John Bond, is playing $5-$10 no-limit hold'em (with $100 min/max buy-in!) at the Seminole Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood, Florida, and my current knowledge partner/protégé Jade Lane is dabbling in live no-limit hold'em at The Venetian and Bellagio, as well as online.

Jade crushed the $30-$60 limit hold'em game at Bellagio for a couple of years before taking up no-limit. After a sound thumping in a no-limit game at The Venetian, he meandered back over to Bellagio to rebuild his bankroll in the $30-$60 limit game. The transition in thinking required when switching games was pretty apparent. Jade observed that the games are like rugby and NFL football, kinda the same, but not! The games, while dealt the same, play quite differently. The math and thinking are different, and the situations you confront have completely different implications, significantly altering the decision-making process. I have, in my 35 years at the tables, observed very few players who play both games well. In spite of Jade's great skills in limit hold'em, he has struggled some with no-limit.

Jade sat down in our $30-$60 limit game and posted his blind behind the button. A player in middle position raised, another player called, and Jade looked down to see the Q 3 and made the call, getting 6.67-1 current on his call. The player on the button, a woman trying to play well and possessing some skills, but without great experience or feel for the game, made it three bets. Part of the problem with calling light with players yet to act behind you is that they may raise. It's not enough to figure out the current odds the pot is laying you and assess your chances based on those current odds. You must extend your odds commensurate with the likelihood of opponents yet to act to raise, and include any possible reraises from players who have already acted.

The blinds folded, the raiser and first caller called, and Jade tossed in three more chips, completing the action. The flop came down Q 8 2, giving Jade top pair, no kicker, and a backdoor diamond draw. Both players in from of Jade checked, and Jade checked. I like Jade's check here. Since the woman had three-bet from the button, her propensity to bet was extremely high, and by checking, Jade could observe what the other two opponents did before making a decision on his hand, basing his choice of play with a marginal hand on greater information than had he led.

Ms. Button bet, the others folded, and it was up to Jade, who flat-called. I also liked this play. The alternative of check-raising to get a read on Ms. Button would not achieve the desired results, since this was the first hand Jade had played and he therefore had no historical basis on which to interpret any information.

The turn card was the 9. Jade check-called. I didn't like Jade's play here. I would have bet the turn, representing two pair or a straight and putting pressure on Ms. Button if she held A-K or a hand with a gutshot draw. Since a Jade bet on the turn would represent a very strong hand, Ms. Button would be hard-pressed to raise. The bets would work out the same as check-calling, and Jade might save himself the pot if she held A-K or another hand that she would fold to a bet, yet might catch up to his holding otherwise, costing Jade the reasonably large pot. The play also might pick up a bet from a Ms. Button marginal holding.

The river brought the 9, pairing the board. Once again, Jade checked, and Ms. Button checked behind him, showing two tens. Jade turned over his hand and dragged the pot. I didn't like Jade's thinking on the river, either. He could have bet with little fear of a raise, and probably would have received a call from Ms. Button with her holding; he also would have received a call from her if she held J-J, and maybe even A-K. Virtually all players would bet an overpair, and if Jade was going to call a river bet, once again, betting would have worked out the same when he was beat, yet he could have gained a bet when he beat her. Yes, he could have check-called and picked off a bluff, but given the texture of the hand/board, she would call with more hands than she would bet, thus indicating better value for Jade in betting.

Jade's a very good player who plays much better than he showed in dogging this hand. This hand demonstrates why it's so difficult to adjust back and forth from no-limit hold'em to limit hold'em. Because he had just come from a no-limit hold'em game, Jade's mindset was locked into the no-limit concept of generally keeping the pot small with one-pair hands (especially with a weak kicker) in order to protect your stack. But in limit hold'em, you want to ensure that you get maximum value out of your one-pair hands. You are risking much less in limit by playing marginal hands aggressively, as the worst that your opponent can do is raise you one bet, which is unlike no-limit, in which you often must risk a big chunk of your stack or even the whole thing to protect your interest in the pot.

My pals are all enjoying no-limit hold'em, and on the whole are doing all right. With the growth of no-limit hold'em, I just might venture there myself!

Roy Cooke has played winning professional poker since 1972, and has been a Card Player columnist since 1992. He has a successful Las Vegas real estate brokerage. See his ad on this page. His longtime collaborator, John Bond, is a freelance writer in South Florida. Their latest book, How to Think Like a Poker Pro, is available from amazon.com and most bookstores.