Defining Small and Big Pairs

What exactly are the small pairs in no-limit hold 'em? Depends on who you ask. Doyle Brunson considers everything below queens to be small, though he puts JJ-99 in a tier above 88-22 within that division (Supersystem, pp 453-486). Phil Hellmuth considers 88-22 small (Play Poker Like the Pros, pp 139-143). The author of Learn Texas Hold 'Em says 99-22 are small. And what about queens? Are they big or middle pairs? Again there's no consensus. The above three specialists illustrate the variety of perception regarding the "size" of pocket pairs:

Brunson

Big AA-KK
Middle QQ
Small JJ-99, 88-22

Hellmuth

Big AA-QQ
Middle JJ-99
Small 88-22

Learn Texas Hold 'Em

Big AA-KK
Middle QQ-TT
Small 99-22

Let's grant that everything up to 8's should be considered small and focus on 9's. Let's also grant that aces and kings are obviously big and wonder about queens. Many people play 9's hyper-aggressively, but when playing tight at a full table I sure don't. Let's look at statistics. Mike Caro provides what he calls a "Table of Misery Index" for all pocket pairs (Caro's Most Profitable Hold 'Em Advice, p 23). The following percentages represent the chances that the flop will have an overcard and not make you a set (three of a kind) with your pair.

2-2 88%
3-3 88%
4-4 87%
5-5 86%
6-6 85%
7-7 81%
8-8 77%
9-9 70%
T-T 60%
J-J 47%
Q-Q 31%
K-K 12%
A-A 0%

This means that if I have 9's, there's a 70% chance that the flop will have a T, J, Q, K, or A and not another 9. I don't know about you, but when there's a 70% that I'll be miserable by definition, I'm not going to treat my hand like it's an Uzi. I would have to play the 9's so aggressively that it could become self-defeating. I consider 9's to be small.

Queens are harder to pin down. I don't often need to play them as aggressively as jacks and tens, and for that reason I consider them big. At the same time, Brunson's caution with queens is well advised. When there's almost a 1 in 3 chance of an ace or king (but not queen) hitting the flop -- and knowing that a lot of people like to play any ace and even kings from any position -- you have to be ready to jump ship. Queens are big with a lower-case "b".

So my own breakdown of the pairs would go as follows. (9's are small, and queens are big though in a tier below aces and kings)

Big AA-KK, QQ
Middle JJ-TT
Small 99-22

The Lure of Ace-Ten (and Ace-Jack)

"Ace-ten is one of those seductive hands that traps many players into losing a lot of money over time. Remember this about kickers -- they're on an accelerated depreciation schedule. Ace-king is a fine hand. Ace-queen is a little weaker, but still good. With ace-jack, you're already sliding rapidly down a slippery slope. With ace-ten, you've slid down the slope, fallen off the cliff, and lie in wreckage at the bottom with hands like ace-five and ace-six." (Harrington on Hold'em, Vol I, p 218)

If there's an award to be given to the most overvalued hand which ends up punishing overconfident players it has to be ace-ten. (Ace-jack is a close second.) Playing online at Full Tilt Poker I've seen AT held as if it were an AK-47, pumping an entire stack of chips over the table to a losing showdown. Quite often.

At a full table AT isn't even close to a powerhouse hand. I play it from fifth position on if no one has entered the pot. It's foolish to play it earlier -- or to call a raise from a tight player, from any position. You'll either win small or lose big. If someone's playing higher aces (typical raising hands), you're hopelessly dominated. Even a crappy 97 stands a better chance against AK or AQ than AT does. I even toss the hand if there are just limpers in front of me. With AT I want first-in vigorish, and from a relatively late position. Then I'm on better ground.

Phil Gordon has an excellent analysis on how to play AT behind a raise, which is compatible enough with my own strategy. Gordon is responding to an email inquiry from a correspondent who -- like so many beginners -- really wants to play his AT. But if the raiser is tight, you should fold:

"If your opponent is a tight, aggressive, tricky, expert-quality player, I think the right move is to fold. You want to avoid playing dominated hands against these types of players. You'll either win a very small pot or you'll lose a very big pot. Because he's tight, the hands he's most likely to play, such as ace-king and ace-queen, dominate your hand. If you hit an ace on the flop, you'll be in a world of hurt, and if you don't hit an ace on the flop, your tricky, aggressive opponent who just raised before the flop will probably be able to maneuver to win the pot from you."

On the other hand, I don't necessarily fold AT to a loose player. As I said before (following Dan Harrington), against loose aggressives who play lots of hands you can play any hand you would normally play from the same position if you first entered the pot. So if I'm in fifth or later position, and a maniac raises before me, I'll do again as Gordon advises: reraise the kamikaze (about 2-3x his own raise), in order to punish him for thinking he can get away with what I love to get away with -- bullying the table with bad hands -- and do my best to win the pot before the flop. If the kamikaze happens to have a good hand for a change, well, that obviously happens. But if he's playing his usual jack-rag or suited gapper, my ace-ten is strong enough for me to try an isolate him heads-up and win the pot.

Gordon covers a third case for "loose predictable" opponents who raise, in which case he advises calling and then maneuvering after the flop. But I'd still reraise in this case. As a moderate loose aggressive I enjoy post-flop maneuvering with unusual hands, but not with trouble hands like AT. I'm just not messing around here. Pound away, and let the chips fall where they may.

You have to be cautious with AJ too. A lot of people play this hand from early (first or second) position -- a clear mistake: in the long run it's statistically unprofitable. You should be in at least third position to play it -- I say fourth -- and play it cautiously. A step above AT, it's still no AK-47. Here's what Mike Caro says:

"Anyone who thinks AJ is profitable [under the gun] doesn't understand the power of position in hold 'em. Here's a dirty little secret: Most players enter the pot [from early position] with this hand. Another secret: Everyone who does so can expect to experience a loss by doing so for their poker-playing careers. You might be tempted to play, but if you just trust me and throw this hand away automatically from the early positions in a full-handed game, you'll save a great deal of money." (Caros' Most Profitable Hold 'Em Advice, p 38)

In Phil Gordon's little blue book, he shows how he played AJ on specific occasions. His lamenting preface: "Ace-jack, a hand that can cause you all kinds of problems, gets overrated by a lot of inexperienced players...it's easily dominated." (pp 146, 109). But Gordon played it strong anyway -- and in all cases got smashed! In the first example he lost his entire stack (pp 109-112). In the second he ended up folding on the turn, but was left crippled in the red zone (15 big blinds) (pp 146-151). In the third he raised a bunch of limpers and again lost his stack (pp 311-313). Gordon doesn't relate any victories with AJ -- probably because victories with this hand tend to be small and not worth illustrating.

He also gives examples where he played the dreaded AT, and with results just as bad. In the first case he was dominated by a drunk holding AJ and lost his whole stack. (pp 27-31). (That's when AJ wins big -- when a fool holding AT can't lay down his hand!) In the second he won, but by bluffing: pushing all-in on the flop and getting his opponent to fold (pp 113-117). In the third he again lost his stack (pp 196-201). Yes, this is the same Phil Gordon we just saw advising such caution with AT. (He does relate an instance when he folded AT right away (pp 97-99).)

Even the pros get sucked into playing AT and AJ, have a hard time getting away from them, and lose big time. So don't get overzealous with these hands. Play them from the right positions, and cautiously, and let them pick up the small pots for you. You'll scoop bigger pots with better hands.

Daniel Negreanu and "Small Ball"

Here's some advice on how to become a more advanced hold 'em player. Daniel Negreanu talks about "small ball" strategy which involves playing lots of marginal hands with medium-size raises, and maneuvering your opponents after the flop. The idea is to create an image of yourself as a maniac while you're really not. It's a tricky strategy and obviously not one for beginners. But if you're ready to try it out and "have faith in the system", as Daniel puts it, it pays off in the long run. You give yourself more opportunities than as a tight player, are able to confuse and trap your opponents, and score unexpected big wins around smaller losses. Small ball has worked pretty well for me so far. So I'm keeping the faith, Daniel.

Daniel Negreanu and "Small Ball" (I), (II), (III).

Seven Prerequisites

Phil Gordon lists what he considers the prerequisites to being a good no-limit player:

(1) Aggression. Do more betting and raising than checking and calling. You can be tight or loose -- either can be a winning aggressive strategy (though I think loose has the edge) -- but you can't be passive.

(2) Patience. Realize that poker isn't primarily about luck or gambling. It's about strategic investment. (There's a reason why virtually the same players make it to the World Series every year.) Be patient and wait for profitable situations to arise. Even loose aggressives know when to wind down and bide their time.

(3) Courage. Be willing to bet big (even push all-in) when you think you might have the best hand -- even if it's not the best possible hand (the nuts).

(4) Observation. Constantly watch your opponents: the hands they show down, their playing style, their tells.

(5) Resilience. Don't let bad beats bother you. Even the pros get their monster hands creamed by better monsters from time to time. It happens. Bad luck can always strike in the short term. (Poker would be pretty boring otherwise.) But good players win more than enough in the long run to compensate for bad beats.

(6) Intense Desire to Improve. Read poker books. Watch the pros play on television. Learn from other players. (Write a poker blog!)

The above qualities are also listed in Gordon's little green book (pp 1-2). But I would add a seventh:

(7) Adaptability. Change gears, vary your play, and be unpredictable. Do this especially when your opponents know you well, or start to become familiar with your playing style and methods.

Some of these will come more naturally to you than others, depending on your personality. I'm patient, observant, resilient, and studious by nature. But I'm not an aggressive soul, nor especially courageous. I am adaptable enough to do something like join the Peace Corps and be an alien for a couple of years, but I'm also set in my ways about many things in life.

So for me, cultivating aggression (the most basic and important of the seven) and courage have been the hardest in no-limit. And when I move up to higher stakes I'm sure it will get even more challenging.

"Live Free or Die" -- Or Not

In New Hampshire poker halls are legal if sponsored by charity organizations. I find it curious that the home of "Live Free or Die" libertarians -- which prides itself on state liquor stores and such -- has been so resilient to gambling. But of course there are more drinkers than poker players. (It's always someone else's vice we can afford to be self-righteous about.) While I applaud the involvement of charities, I don't think they should be required. What consenting adults do with their money is their business.

But it's been nice to witness the opening of two poker halls over the last two months, in Milford and Brookline. My hometown rag announced the openings back in December:

Poker halls hit Milford, Brookline; Nashua says hold 'em

Nashua, my utopian abode, continues digging in its heels -- mostly for parking issues! Well, this is Nashua we're talking about. My fellow residents are a practical lot if nothing else.

It's the sanctimonius crusaders from across the state who really make my piles fester: the Granite Coalition Against Expanded Gambling. The article cites Chairman Jim Reubens as claiming that "gambling reduces quality of life", leading to addiction, which in turn increases bankruptcy, divorce, embezzlement, and child abuse. But all of this applies even more so to alcoholism. Sorry Jim, but solutions to these problems don't lie in prohibition.

I don't hold out much hope for Nashua. But at least there are some nearby towns making headway... and there's always Foxwoods when one needs to get away from this godforsaken state altogether.

"Do Something They Don't Expect"

"Limping is not an option for me. When I'm first to the pot, I always raise, no exceptions. There are many other great players who disagree with me, but this is the style I play." (Phil Gordon's Little Blue Book, p 147)

"If there's one single place where I disagree with published contemporary theory, it's in the area of betting aggressively when you're the first to act... If you think there's a yes or no answer, you're not living in the real poker universe where you often must vary decisions." (Caro's Most Profitable Hold 'Em Advice, p 89)

I think it's a mistake not to vary your play in no-limit. Yes, aggression is key, but deception and unpredictability are also important. What does the shade of Thomas Covenant tell Linden Avery in Donaldson's fantasy series? "Do something they don't expect." That's my motto playing no-limit. Like any good player, I do more raising than limping (pre-flop) and more betting than checking (post-flop) when first to act. But I mix up my play more often than someone like Gordon does. I'm with Caro (and Covenant!) all the way here.

The Truth About Pocket Aces

Who's right?

"Rarely slowplay aces. This is a key insight which beginners frequently violate. Slowplaying creates a smaller pot with more participants -- exactly what you don't want... You want more money in the pot, but not more players. Aces are a big favorite against a single opponent, but winning chances start to drop drastically as more players get involved." (Dan Harrington, p 232)

"Despite common advice, you do not want to raise with aces in order to chase players out of the pot before the flop. That pair of aces usually makes as much money or more with extra opponents chasing you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't raise. But it means when you do raise, you're usually doing so hoping opponents will call, not fold. Thinning the field has its moments, but, contrary to what you've heard, raising with aces before the flop isn't one of them." (Mike Caro, p 24)

Caro is right. I can't tell how many times I've won big from trapping with aces. When I play them more straightforwardly, the victories tend to be smaller. Why settle for an anti-climax when I'm playing the best possible hand?

The advice to raise religiously with aces usually comes from tight-aggressives. Like Harrington, Phil Gordon reminds us -- quite rightly -- that any pocket pair, even the biggest, loses its winning potential as your number of opponents increases. In the case of aces, they win against a single opponent 86% of the time; against four opponents they win 55% of the time. You get the idea. And another tight Phil, Hellmuth, warns against limping/trapping with aces:

"Some players like to just call before the flop when holding [aces] in the hope that the move will trap someone into giving them all his chips after the flop. This is a dangerous theory with a risk-reward hazard that any expert in game theory would love to look at! Most of the time you should just go ahead and raise/reraise with [aces]... When trapping works out, you look brilliant; but when you bust yourself trapping someone, you look like an idiot." (Play Poker Like the Pros, p 140)

But Doyle Brunson has never been afraid of "looking like an idiot". As a loose aggressive he loves to mix up his play, limp and trap, though usually with reraises:

"With a pair of aces in an early position before the flop I would probably limp in with them hoping that somebody would raise it behind me so I could reraise. In a middle position -- if nobody in the early seats came in -- I would play them the same way. But if somebody in the early seats did come in, I'd put in a raise with them... In a late position I'd obviously raise with them and hope that somebody trailed their hand around to me -- that is, slowplayed their hand so they could reraise me." (Brunson's Super System, p 453)

Frankly I've had success limping with aces from any position. Sometimes I spring the trap (reraise) before the flop, sometimes after. It's a charm in either case. The key to not making an "idiot" of yourself is this: just get away from those blasted aces when a scary flop hits or you think someone has you beat. The problem for beginners is that they can't lay down their aces -- even when the flop doesn't improve them beyond a pair and an opponent bets big. They've waited all day for those pocket rockets and think they're by-God entitled to win. I'm able to get away from my aces if needs must.

Experience has taught me that Caro is right. Limping (or raising very small) with aces will work wonders for you in the long run, I promise. Whenever I raise with aces and win, it's usually the smaller pots -- not only have I narrowed my competition, but my opponent is aware I have a good hand. When I limp with aces and win, the pay-offs are bigger because no one suspects I have them, and more people are trapped in the pot.

Starting Hands in No-Limit

Starting hand requirements in no-limit are different from those in limit, and more murky. You'll often ignore them according to the people you're playing with and/or how loose your style is. But even loose aggressives need to tighten up occasionally and play solid poker. What two cards should you be looking for when playing tight?

Phil Gordon's Handguides provide an answer. They're duplicated from the appendix of the author's little green book but with jazzy color-coding. Gordon emphasizes that his charts should be taken with a grain of salt, for no-limit "is not a game best played by the numbers... it's a game of situations" (p 23). And the charts only show which hands are playable under the specific condition that no one has entered the pot yet.

Dan Harrington gives his version in the first volume of his hold 'em series. He goes into more depth than Gordon, presenting hand requirements under five different scenarios: (1) no one has entered the pot yet; (2) a player opened the pot with a raise; (3) a player limped into the pot; (4) a player opened the pot with a raise and another player reraised; (5) two or more players limped into the pot.

Well, they can do it, so can I. Here are my own rules -- which I break all the time. As a loose aggressive I may cheerfully enter the pot with garbage and try to maneuver my opponents after the flop. But when I need to wind down and play tight, they serve as a general guide, especially when I don't know the players well. I'll consider four scenarios at a full (9-10 player) table.

1. No one has entered the pot yet.

AA, KK, QQ -- Raise 2-3x from any position. Sometimes limp with aces to trap, if the table is tight enough.

JJ -- Raise 4-5x from third position on. Limp from earlier positions.

TT -- Raise 4-5x from fourth position on. Limp from earlier positions.

99 -- Raise 3-4x from fifth position on. Limp from earlier positions.

88, 77 -- Raise 3-4x from sixth position on. Limp from earlier positions.

66, 55, 44 -- Raise 3-4x from the button on. Limp from earlier positions.

33, 22 -- Raise 3-4x from the small blind. Limp from earlier positions.

AK -- Raise 3-5x from any position.

AQ -- Raise 3-5x from third position on.

AJ -- Raise 3-5x from fourth position on.

AT -- Raise 3-5x from fifth position on.

A9 -- Raise 3-5x from sixth position on.

A8 -- Raise 3-5x from the button on.

Face Cards (KQ, KJ, QJ) -- Raise 3-5x from sixth position on.

Face-Tens (KT, QT, JT) -- Raise 3-5x from the button on.

Ax suited, Kx suited -- Limp from any position (though raise if x is high enough, per the above), or from late positions if the table is very aggressive.

Connectors -- Limp from any position (though raise if the connectors are high enough, per the above), or from late positions if the table is very aggressive.

I assign pocket pairs positions based on the likelihood that any remaining player to act will have a higher pocket pair. If that percentage is higher than 10% it's not a raising hand. Raising too high with aces, kings, and queens may discourage action, and sometimes I'll even limp with aces (though not kings and queens) to trap my opponents if the table is tight enough. Jacks and tens are a different story. Those I play very aggressively, because the likelihood that an overcard (ace, king, or queen) will fall on the flop increases and I want to limit the competition. With 9s and below I'm really hoping to make a set (three of a kind).

With aces I loosen my kicker requirements progressively down to 8. Some experts consider A8 the cut-off for playable aces, since A7-A2 are in the bottom half of ace-hands and easily dominated; anyone playing a higher ace is probably going to cream you. For that matter, you have to be careful with any kicker below Q. Even as a loose aggressive I'm religious about not playing AJ-A8 earlier than from the positions I've assigned (not even to limp). Ditto with face cards and face-tens -- big-time trouble hands for beginners. The trouble with medium aces and face cards is that they usually win small or lose big. I'd rather play a garbage hand like 86 than AT from early position.

As for limping (calling) hands: I love medium/small pairs, suited aces/kings, and connectors. They rarely hit the flop (and should be folded in the face of a raise), but when they do hit they hit mighty hard. Sets, flushes, and straights are the best trapping hands.

2. One player opened the pot with a raise.

(a) The raiser is tight.

Using the gap concept, I call with any hand I would open the pot with (by raising) from the raiser's position. I reraise 2-3x with any hand I would open the pot with (by raising) from before the raiser's position.

(b) The raiser is loose.

I simply reraise 2-3x with any hand I would open a pot with (by raising) from my own position. As Harrington says, the gap concept doesn't apply to loose players who often move with marginal hands (like me!).

3. One player opened the pot with a raise, and another player reraised.

I reraise 2-3x with AA and KK, call with QQ, and fold everything else (even AK). I'm not going to get involved with anything other than the very best -- unless both players are complete maniacs.

4. Two or more players limped into the pot.

If only one player has limped, I usually act as I would if no one has entered the pot (assuming the limper isn't tricky-tight who might be trapping). But if I have two or more limpers in front of me, I adjust my play accordingly.

AA-TT -- Raise 4-5x the big blind.

99-22 -- Limp.

AK, AQ -- Raise 3-5x the big blind.

Ax suited, Kx suited -- Limp.

Connectors -- Limp.

Nothing else is worth playing. Medium aces and face cards are usually trouble here, because there are too many people who can connect with the flop in weird ways. With big pairs, AK, and AQ you have to raise hard to drive at least some limpers out of the pot. With small pairs, Ax suited, Kx suited, and connectors, you can only limp, but that serves you in the long run: the pay-off is huge when you make a set, straight or flush; the more people in the pot, the merrier.

Let me stress again that these are my general guidelines for tight-aggressive play (and at a full table) when the occasion demands. When I'm playing loose, familiar with my opponents, or at a table with five players or less, all of this goes out the window. But it's good enough advice for beginners, as are the variations offered by Phil Gordon and Dan Harrington.

Quote for the Day: A Loose Table Image

"If opponents think that you're dangerous, but that you know what you're doing, you've gained psychological leverage. But you gain much more psychological leverage if your opponents think you're dangerous and you don't know what you're doing. Opponents predictably run for cover and hold their fire against a 'loose canon'. You need to put your ego aside and allow your opponents to think that you're playing poorly or are just lucky... I get tremendous mileage out of one or two very blatant plays. I like to spread hopeless hands. I want them to be so absurd that players will remember them... When you master techniques like this and present them just right, it's an art form. You risk seeming forced and phony unless you practice. But it's worth the effort." (Caro's Most Profitable Hold 'Em Advice, pp 163, 147-148)

What to Read

If you visit the gaming section of your local Barnes and Noble, you'll probably see zillions of books about Texas hold 'em, but most of it is for limit. It's harder to find no-limit material, and what is out there can be pretty superficial. Part of the reason for this is that no-limit is more situational than limit, and "rules" often go out the door. Learning limit is easy: just read Slansky and Malmuth. They'll teach you all the right hands to play from the right positions, and you'll be pretty much set to go. In no-limit the guidelines are more elastic. What really matters is the people you're playing with. Many of the "rules" even change. Small pocket pairs increase in value, while hands like AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, QJ decrease and actually become trouble (meaning you'll win small or lose big with them). Your position at the table becomes more crucial, especially after the flop. There's a lot of bluffing. It's a game of psychology more than math. The math matters but plays second fiddle to gut instinct. And you usually can't chase draws, because your opponents make it prohibitively expensive to see more cards. (In limit they can't do that, so you have the right pot odds to keep calling.) You make probe bets to test other players, continuation bets even when the flop misses you; bet too small, you're asking to be run over; too much, and you look desperate. It's hard to teach a game as wild as no-limit. The most brutal teacher, experience, is best of all.

That being said, there are some excellent no-limit sources that you just have to read. The following five are essential. So dig right in. (And don't ask me why poker players feel the need to include their names in book-titles. Maybe the profession is inherently egocentric.)

Doyle Brunson's Super System II. This updated classic from the '70s has essays for all poker games, but Brunson's chapter on no-limit is absolutely timeless. It's not exactly for beginners though, because Brunson is so loose aggressive. See also this website which explains why Doyle's wisdom stands the test of time, and why (in the author's opinion) "tight-aggressive play will not win the day in no-limit hold 'em". I think that's an overstatement (there are tight-aggressives who continue to win big) but agree that loose aggressive players have the edge.

Caro's Most Profitable Hold 'Em Advice. There's a lot of valuable information here, but you have to be careful. It's for limit and no-limit, and Caro doesn't always keep the distinction clear. With that in mind, the book is a gem, containing a lot of advice never seen before in a hold 'em book. There's a great section on the maximum stakes you can play for based on your bankroll size, and all the ins-and-outs of treating hold 'em as your business. (Good players know that poker is more about strategic investment than gambling.) The author reviews tips from his classic on tells and advocates creating a loose image at the table so as to confuse your opponents and make them think you're a weak player. There are a lot of helpful tables and statistical analyses for limit players to chew on, but even for no-limit players to be aware of in a more general way.

Phil Gordon's Little Green Book and Blue Book. The green book is a solid guide to tight aggressive play, the blue a candid presentation of the author's victories and losses in various cash games and tournaments. I highly recommend these for beginners. They're popular for their conversational tone, humor, and the author's honest approach to self-assessment. I don't agree with all of Gordon's strategies (especially his policy of almost always raising when he's first to enter the pot, and with the same amount in order to disguise the strength of his hand), but I've found a lot of them to be spot on for tight aggressive play.

Harrington on Hold 'Em: Expert Strategy for No-Limit Tournaments, Vol I, II, III. Considered by many to be the bibles of no-limit hold 'em, these are aimed at tournament play, though most of the first volume (for early stages) is applicable to cash games as well. Harrington gives his own take on the right hands to play from the right positions in no-limit, while acknowledging that looser styles of play work perfectly well for other players. In the second volume he teaches you how to play when you're short-stacked, at a short-handed table, or both (when you must loosen up and take more risks, no matter how tight you normally are). His final section on heads-up play is outstanding. The workbook then puts you inside the heads of pros and makes you to play their hands for them -- hands they won or lost in televised tournaments. You just can't do without the Harrington bibles, especially if you love tournaments.

Learn Texas Hold 'Em. This is the best online guide to no-limit hold 'em. The author appears to be somewhere between tight and loose aggressive. He spells out the differences between limit and no-limit better than any author anywhere. Don't miss his Q&A page -- he takes the time to answer most questions from anyone, including newbies.

How Aggressive?

Those who play no-limit hold 'em are probably familiar with the four types of poker players:

Tight Passives ("Rocks"). They play few hands (good ones) and usually check or call when they do, raising only if they have the immortal nuts. They're timid and ultimately unsuccessful players. You can bluff and bully them to no end. But it's hard to make money off them because they fold at the slightest hint of aggression. Naturally, they don't make much money themselves.

Loose Passives ("Calling Stations"). They play lots of hands (even marginal and bad ones) but seldom raise, preferring to check and call in hopes that their hand will improve and win. You want these people at your table more than any other type of player: a guaranteed source of revenue. They chase straight draws, flush draws, for wrong pot odds, and don't like to fold. But because of this, it's hard to bluff them. You have to bet for value. They're bad poker players ("fish") and lose money religiously.

Tight Aggressives ("Killers"). They play few hands (good ones) and go for the jugular when they do, raising and reraising to build pots and take them down. You don't want too many of them at your table, because they don't give much action (though they can be bluffed because of this) but mean business when they finally come after you. Their predictability can be their weakness if they don't loosen up occasionally. And because they sit around waiting for good hands, they have a hard time laying them down when they're beat.

Loose Aggressives ("Maniacs"). They play lots of hands (even marginal and bad ones) and want to dominate the table by raising and reraising, with a lot of bluffing and semi-bluffing -- and they're hard to bluff in turn. You'll fear and resent them if you're a timid player, but love them if you're experienced because of the revenue they provide. They're the center of attention at the table: they win big, lose big, and crave action.

Most poker books and online sources (see here and here for example) recommend the tight-aggressive style of playing, and that's certainly the one I'd advise for beginners. If you play tight-aggressive, then you play "good poker". You play the right hands from the right positions and are patient enough to fold and sit out the rest. You raise and fold more often than you check and call. That's the solid wisdom taught in great books like Phil Gordon's Little Green Book and Dan Harrington's three-volume classic. But in recent years more experts have been promoting loose aggressive as the superior style. Which is it?

I agree with this strategist who advocates loose aggressive as the style you eventually want to master. Tight aggressives (like tight passives) have an Achilles' heel underscored by Doyle Brunson: "they don't get their really good hands paid off because they make a move so rarely that their hands are an open-book whenever they do." (Super System, p 422) Tight players can be predictable and thus easy to avoid. True, they're not prone to lose money like loose players; but they may not make much either -- especially in today's world where hold 'em has become so popular that everyone plays tight aggressive. Loose players have an advantage because people are never sure what they're holding.

But loose aggressive a difficult and dangerous style to play (trust me, I've only begun trying to master it). Amateurs who try dominating the table this way are bound to lose their stacks. They're called "maniacs" for a reason. If you don't know what you're doing, it's only a question of time before your bankroll gets smashed. But with enough practice you can really make this style work for you. If you're a good psychologist and know your opponents, use the right mixture of bluffs and semi-bluffs -- and know precisely when to tighten up in the right doses when people start coming after you -- then the loose aggressive style becomes very profitable.

You have to be willing to lose battles so you can win the war. Occasionally I'll make myself look like an idiot and call with bad cards so people won't take me seriously. Then it's only a matter of time before I get paid off. Sometimes I'll play a hand without even looking at it. As Mike Caro emphasizes in his new book, you want people to think you're stupid. It serves you in the long run.

While I personally think loose aggressives have the edge in no-limit hold 'em, it's possible to be play either style of aggression and be successful -- so long as you can switch gears and play the opposite style when you need to. Think of tight/loose as being on a sliding scale. It's the poles you want to avoid. Play too solid and you'll become frustrated when everyone shuts down on you or you get bad-beat. Play like a kamikaze and you'll lose loads of money through stupidity. Find your style, but change gears often enough so that people can't figure you out. Phil Gordon, Howard Lederer, and Dan Harrington are tight aggressive players. Doyle Brunson, Gus Hansen, and Dan Negreanu are loose aggressive. But none is a slave to his style. Good players, especially the pros, always adapt and do the unexpected. The key is aggression. Passive players don't stand a chance.

Welcome

On this hallowed ground I obsess my new hobby, No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em, the Cadillac of poker games that's become so popular in recent years. The blog is aimed at new and intermediate players, those who are comfortable at the table but wonder why they don't do better. I wonder that myself, so let this be an interactive process.

I've never played limit hold 'em and have no wish to -- I jumped right into the world of big risk. Limit is straightforward and mechanical, no-limit brutally psychological. Limit is a science, no-limit an art. Or as Crandall Addington said, "In limit you're shooting at a target, but in no-limit the target comes alive and shoots back at you." And the legendary Doyle Brunson thinks no-limit is the only pure poker game left. It demands considerable skill and intuition. It can be cruel. You can lose your whole stack in one hand. But the risk is what makes it so fun and rewarding.

As for the blog title? A bit of self-recrimination. Everyone knows you don't chase flush draws in no-limit (unless you can pay cheap for the privilege), but it took me a while to appreciate why. But we'll discuss chasing later. Tomorrow we'll look at the four playing styles and consider which is best. I don't think the usual answer is the right one.