Why Do No-Limit Players Suck In Limit

[RPatterson]

I win in no-limit tournaments and cash games but whenever I have the fancy to join a limit cash game I can count on losing. I was wondering why. What are the normal reasons decent no-limit players suck at limit? And no, I don' try to bully the table and bluff alot.

[PokerSlut]

I'm guess hand selection might have some to do with it.

Starting hands are inherently valued differently in a NL game due to implied odds, though maybe not as much in tourney play as the stack sizes are usually much smaller compared to the blinds.

Small pocket pairs and suited connectors especially look much more appealing to a NL player than a limit player, and conversely those unsuited non-ace broadway cards like KJo and QJo that have less value in NL are worth much, much more EV in limit.

If you are used to playing NL, you might find yourself playing the wrong starting hands just out of habit rather than thinking about the necessary adjustments.

Also, postflop play can be quite different, as controlling the pot size (and the size of the field to a lesser extent) in a limit game involves much more subtlety IMO than in NL or PL. TPTK is generally a stronger holding in limit than in NL. Reading hands is much different as you typically don't have as much information to go on in a limit game as you do in NL. And, the fact that the pot odds are usually so much better than NL means you are going to be showing down more hands, and will be up against a wider range of holdings when you show down.

[Schneids]

NL players that suck at limit probably do so because their starting hand selection sucks and postflop they probably fold too much when they read they're beat even though the potsize probably dictates something outside of folding. Basically, they aren't accustomed to multiway action.

[Cleveland Guy]

Shouldn't your post be titled - Why do I suck at Limit?

I am sure many people here are winning player at both Limit and no limit - if you feel you can't handle the limit game, then ask for specific advice, or try and post some hands you think you are losing that you should win at.

[Baseballa19]

I don't play limit nearly as well as no limit. I play similar starting hands, but most hands in limit are played to showdown and usually with more folks involved. That means you have to beat more hands. In no limit, you can usually get some people to fold just by betting or raising enough. Then, you only have one or two people to beat.

[kiemo]

Becuase in limit you cant just go all in to protect your vunerable hand and get everyone to fold.

[jdbessix]

Would guess it would be starting hand choices and position.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
Becuase in limit you cant just go all in to protect your vunerable hand and get everyone to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though hand selection is probably part of it, this part may be an even bigger issue. In fact, you often hear it from NL players playing limit. They'll bluff at a pot by raising simply because they sense weakness. Of course, fish don't fold when they have bottom pair so this doesn't do anything but put more money in the pot.

[LA_Price]

I play no limit as well as limit and I wouldn't say that I'm great at either but I do alright in both. It's hard to know what your particular problem is without seeing hands that you play. Post some hands in the micro and small stakes forums and they should get you straightened out. Buy a copy of Small Stakes Hold'em by Ed miller as well. Things like value betting and calling down when beaten are much more important in limit than in no-limit. Many times in a limit you can be pretty sure your hand is currently beaten but should call anyway because the pot is so big and the bet size comparatively small.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
Becuase in limit you cant just go all in to protect your vunerable hand and get everyone to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

if your hand is a favorite then I don't want everyone to fold, in limit or NL.
I am by far a better limit player than no limit, but I'm still a winning NL(small stakes) player.

[cepstrum]

Hi Erostratus -

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say its because the pots are much bigger relative to the bet size in limit. This causes lots of tricky situations where firing a bet or folding a second-best hand isn't always the right thing to do. In no-limit, you can make the pot/bet ratio as big or as small as you want to, and so can your opponents. So in a sense the pot is always potentially small. And when the pot is small, firing a bet and folding mediocre hands is often correct.

So I'm saying pot size. Mediocre no-limit players don't understand how pot size affects strategy in limit, so they often end up shedding chips one ill-advised bet and fold at a time.

The luck factor in limit is also singificantly higher than in no-limit, and again this is a consequence of larger pots. Those calling stations that you can cream in no-limit by inducing a single bad call aren't making nearly as big a mistake when they do the same thing in limit.

Anyway, whether these observations apply to you or not, I can't say. But not understanding how the size of the pot impacts your strategy is a major killer, and if you really are having problems, you should start to think more about how to play in large (relative to bet size) pots.

Good Luck

Cepstrum

[Baseballa19]

This is true, but the hand that's the favorite pre-flop may not be the best hand after the turn. The more players that stay in, the more likely it is that someone gets a better hand.

[turnipmonster]

preflop: NL players place a premium on position and hands with large implied odds, and will often call raises with hands like suited connectors that won't hit enough to make up the loss from cold calling in a limit game.

postflop: NL players don't place a lot of value on hands like one pair, since in NL it's not a very good hand. also, they overestimate what their opponents are calling them with and miss value bets, particularly on the river. also they may make incorrect folds with non nut draws in multiway pots.

generally: in NL folding a hand like one pair when you seem to be beat is never really a disaster because you're usually getting only 2 to 1. so your read in that situation is important, i.e. you have to be right a larger amount of the time to show a profit. in limit games when you are getting like 14 to 1 on the river, almost no one can read someone accurately enough to fold a hand that has a chance of winning.

also, bluffing is much less prevalent in limit.

in NL you worry about building the pot, betting yourself out of the pot, being pot committed or pot committing your opponent, etc. it's just a different set of variables strategically.

--turnipmonster

[1800GAMBLER]

Any good NL player who sucks at limit just sucks at poker, period. If he really was a good NL player he'd understand poker and be able to adjust to limit.

[Baseballa19]

[ QUOTE ]
Any good NL player who sucks at limit just sucks at poker, period. If he really was a good NL player he'd understand poker and be able to adjust to limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the well thought out imput.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
This is true, but the hand that's the favorite pre-flop may not be the best hand after the turn. The more players that stay in, the more likely it is that someone gets a better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats how you make money at poker, people playing and calling with worse hands than yours. Is it ever correct to make a HUGE preflop bet in a NL cash game? If you have AA you want some callers. If you have 27off you shouldn't make a huge bet. If you have 22(insert venuarble hand) you don't want to raise huge either.

[Nightwish]

[ QUOTE ]

My postflop limit play is borderline awful, it's just really basic without many thought thrown into it. I'm still really new to limit so some plays i just haven't done/thought about at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you have been able to adjust.

[Cashcow]

I'm gonna have to disagree,
In a no limit game, I always raise big pre flop. First because it shoves out the garbage that may draw out on you, and second, because if I do get a caller, I want a lot of money in the pot with the best starting hand.
I'm pretty sure anyone with any NL experience will tell you "RAISE WITH AA" in any position.
BTW I suck at limit, but have been doing very well in NL for some time now.

[Cashcow]

Excellent post. Glad you could add some intelligent input to the forum.


NOT

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna have to disagree,
In a no limit game, I always raise big pre flop. First because it shoves out the garbage that may draw out on you, and second, because if I do get a caller, I want a lot of money in the pot with the best starting hand.
I'm pretty sure anyone with any NL experience will tell you "RAISE WITH AA" in any position.
BTW I suck at limit, but have been doing very well in NL for some time now.

[/ QUOTE ]

you misunderstood my post. At least I think you did.
If you have AA of course you are going to raise preflop, generally about 3 or 4 bb's because you want some callers(even though you have the best hand right now). You don't want to bet 15 bb's everytime and have everybody fold just to win the blinds. And the problem with raising big with 22 is that if you don't know if you have the best hand. If you're called or raised you are probably in trouble. With 22 you want as many callers as you can get. Almost always limp(even though you may have a better hand than AK preflop).

[Cashcow]

Yes, I obviously misunderstood your first post.
Always raise AA, but don't over raise. (3 or 4 times the BB is typical.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I also agree on your 22 point. The more the marrier, simply for the set value.

[VeraN]

I don't really agree with your initial statement about how no limit players suck in limit. Rather, I believe if you are a good NL player, then you are bound to be a decent/good limit player as well. There are more variables you have to think about in NL, for example if the opponent is bluffing when he overraises (while at the same time he may overbet it knowing that you are good enough to sense that he may be bluffing, while he really isn't).

I do agree with your point that not all NL players are good limit players and the reason I could think of is because there isn't enough thrill in limit compared to NL. Why is it that most broadcasted tournaments are NL? It's because of the action/thrill/suspense of people going all in and busting/winning on unique cards which draw attention from the crowd.

In limit you won't have as much suspense knowing that even if you call all the way until the river, you won't lose your whole stack since the other guy can't bluff and raise all-in putting your whole stack at stake.

-http://www.pokernoob.com

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I win in no-limit tournaments and cash games but whenever I have the fancy to join a limit cash game I can count on losing. I was wondering why. What are the normal reasons decent no-limit players suck at limit? And no, I don' try to bully the table and bluff alot.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because you're...er...they're concetrating on trying to score with the 15-year-old coat check girl and not concentrating on the game.

[1800GAMBLER]

I can't believe so many players flamed my post. It's true. The concepts are the same. As it is if you were to switch to stud/omaha etc you just have to be able and apply them and if you can't apply them you never understood them.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
Any good NL player who sucks at limit just sucks at poker, period. If he really was a good NL player he'd understand poker and be able to adjust to limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent post. Glad you could add some intelligent input to the forum.


NOT

[/ QUOTE ]

A bit blunt, perhaps, but tell me something. Is he wrong?

[turnipmonster]

I agree 100% with your post actually, but I do think some players fail to adjust and what I posted were the reasons why.

[Baseballa19]

I guess I should trust your opinion, even though guys with a little poker experience thinks that limit and no-limit are two completely different animals. Doyle Brunson is one of them.

[Baseballa19]

Dude, if you are playing 2,7o then I don't really care to hear what you have to say.

[cepstrum]

Hi 1800GAMBLER -

I think you're sort of correct in principle. But realize that it is entirely possible for a player to discover by accident the correct strategy for any particular poker game. There aren't many of these, but since so many people are trying, they do exist. So it is in fact possible to be somewhat formidable at some particular game without understanding core poker concepts. Thus they would not be very good at other games.

This is particularly the case in no-limit, and especially in no-limit tournaments, where a player is often all-in before or on the flop. Obviously, skillful river play isn't all that important in such games, or at least not nearly as important as in limit. If you never play the river, you are going to have a hard time adjusting unless you really spend a lot of time thinking about general poker concepts.

Good Luck

Cepstrum

[bdk3clash]

Small criticism of your explanation: someone that isn't "good" at no limit river play isn't really "good" at no limit.

1800Gambler is right, by the way.

[1800GAMBLER]

I'm not saying they are similar games, it's just that poker concepts apply in every form of poker hence the book theory of poker can be writen and can be so general yet so good.

Omaha Hilo is a very different game than HE and at the moment i'm learning omaha hilo and of course i suck now, at the moment it's difficult to know how players play with certain hands, it's difficult to hand read, yet give me a few weeks and i'll have the experience and then be able to apply all the concepts i've learnt from HE.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, if you are playing 2,7o then I don't really care to hear what you have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]


What in the world are you talking about? nm I don't really care to hear.

[RPatterson]

[ QUOTE ]
Small criticism of your explanation: someone that isn't "good" at no limit river play isn't really "good" at no limit.

1800Gambler is right, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and someone who is always all-in pre-flop or on the flop isn't good in no-limit tournaments either.

[jokerthief]

The main difference between limit and no-limit play is that no-limit is more strategic and less mechanical than limit play. It's more difficult to read hands in limit games and straightforward play is usually a better way than using deceptive plays. If you are very skilled at card reading and betting pattern recognition, then limit takes away your big guns to some extent. Bad beats and legitamate outdraws happen with more frequency as well, which could lead you towards subtle tilt which could be a significant leak in your limit game. I would be really honest with myself about that as that could easily make the differece between winning and losing in the long run. One last thing is to re-visit the writings of Sklansky and Mamuth often. Wear off the covers of their books.