Limit or No-Limit?

[b33nz]

When playing on-line to make a profit on a daily/weekly basis. What do you guys go for?

Do you play in limit or no-limit games?
Do you play in cash games or tournaments?
Do you play in short-handed or full games?

Or does it vary? I still can't seem to find which game will make the most money overtime without risking much of it at the same time.

In limit games you need a big bankroll due to the size of the blinds, but in no-limit you can lose a fraction of your bankroll in one hand.

[Ray Of Light]

Or does it vary? I still can't seem to find which game will make the most money overtime without risking much of it at the same time.

It sounds as though you want to play and win every session and never ever lose or go through a down swing. But in poker, everytime you sit down at the table, you risk losing your buyin.

You can't lose what you don't put in the middle... but then again, you can't win much either...

Even so, No-Limit has less variance than Limit games, but limit is better for the less experienced player since there is very little 'player reading' ability required (provided that you choose the softest games).

Also in answer to your questions, my answers are:

Limit (I have the bankroll for it)
Cash Games (tournaments can have you going through some terrible downturn swings)
Full ring (more dead money on the table) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[cowboyzfan]

I would love to see a serious discussion develop from this question. In a way, i think it is the question we are all trying to answer. I think people that come to a site like this are trying to learn a skill and apply that skill to make money on a consistent basis.

Whether a person chooses no limit or limit Hold'em will require a very different curriculum, a costly one no matter the choice. So the question remains, which course to follow? Does either variation offer a better or more consistent reward to the relatively skilled/learned player over the average fish? Also, does one game attract more fish than the other?

It seems to me that this site is made up of about 80 percent limit players and 20 percent NL players. Obviously, a major factor in this is that 2+2 publishing, to date, has focused on limit play. The two kings of 2+2 are limit players.

However, every thread i have seen to date on the subject of "which poker game is the most profitable" (albeit i have only seen a few of these threads), has said no limit hold'em is the most profitable. Another way of saying it is that the learned player has the greatest advantage at NL play.

So, the question remains. If we are all here to make money. And no limit offers the greatest advantage to the skilled player, why are we all playing limit?

Furthermore, wouldn't it make sense that the recent "poker craze" brought on by "Rounders", the World Poker Tour, and WSOP would draw more total fish to NL games?

I am a mostly limit intermediate player who has purchased his fair share of books and software. I am at a crossroads trying to decide which route to follow, limit or NL. I would love to see an in depth disscussion of this issue and these questions. I realize there is no "right or wrong" since we are talking about games with possibly different requisite skills, but I think many would like to know from the pros what course of study offers the greatest reward, if there is an answer to this question at all.

And to personalize this question a bit hoping for a better response, i would love to hear why poker pros like Dynasty, Clarkmeister, and Ed Miller are playing limit rather than no limit. Also, i am not talking the kind of no limit where you can lose your house on one bet, that downside is obvious. I am talking say $3 - $6 limit versus $100 or $200 buy in no limit, for example.

thanks to any replies.

[b33nz]

Thanks for the input, both of you. Also, notice I said 'overtime' which means obviously there will be a few losses here and there.

I would like to ask when you enter a limit game what is your system on determining how much you will buy-in for that one game.
I believe having 100x the big blind in a limit game is good. So in a $2/$4 game, your bankroll would be $200. Disagree with me if you want, I'm still fairly new to limit. I'm more of a no-limit player.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
there will be a few losses here and there.


[/ QUOTE ]

More than a few.

[ QUOTE ]
So in a $2/$4 game, your bankroll would be $200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your session bankroll, if you believe in such things. I don't, but if you do, even that amount isn't too adequate. That's 50 BB there that you've computed for 2/4, not 100, by the way. 100 BB would be $400, not $200. If you lost 50 BB I wouldn't think much of it, but if you lose 100 BB in one session, you definitely want to ask yourself if you're playing well or have gone on tilt.

[turnipmonster]

the reason most people play limit on the net is their comparable earn is much higher due to the stakes of the games offered. take party poker, for instance. the highest NL they offer is a $200 max buyin game, which is low stakes by anyone's standards. whereas in limit there is a clear path to midlimit games like 10/20 and 15/30. at least on party, you can make a lot more in the 15/30 than you can in the $200 buyin NL, simply because it's a bigger game.

it is very true that PL/NL games give good players an bigger edge. and because of this, you are going to find yourself up against (sometimes) tough competition when you start playing medium stakes PL/NL. sure there are fish as well, but they're not the kind of fish that just call huge bets with bottom pair and pay you off on the river. it's a misconception common in limit players that in NL you can "protect your hand" by betting a lot and people are still going to just pay you off ad infinitum. yes, you can give people bad odds to draw, but they can also blow you off your hand and make you make a huge mistake (fold incorrectly).

I am primarily a PL player, but I play some limit on the net. my perspective is that limit is a game of forcing your opponents to make small mistakes, and PL/NL is a game of tricking your opponents into making big ones.

bad limit players will get ground down slowly, losing a little here and there and occasionally having a good run that keeps them playing. bad PL/NL players tend to just get busted over and over again, so the really horrible ones quickly quit. my basic point in all this rambling is you are going to face vastly different types of opponents in PL/NL vs. limit, and your edge over these opponents is what determines your profitability in that game.

--turnipmonster

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
And to personalize this question a bit hoping for a better response, i would love to hear why poker pros like Dynasty, Clarkmeister, and Ed Miller are playing limit rather than no limit. Also, i am not talking the kind of no limit where you can lose your house on one bet, that downside is obvious. I am talking say $3 - $6 limit versus $100 or $200 buy in no limit, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go to a cardroom and look at the games offered. There has been an explosion of NL games recently but they are still vastly outnumbered by limit games. You will always find limit games. PL/NL is much harder to come by. Also, as turnip has pointed out, since the good players have a substantially greater edge in big bet games, the bad players bust more quickly. Correspondingly, one can expect the big bet games to get tougher more quickly than the limit games.

[Ray Of Light]

How much I buyin with depends on the game. If it is a loose aggressive game, then I'll buyin with about 50BB, but my typical game choice is loose passive, 40% seeing the flop, no maniacs, very little aggression. With those games I buyin for about 35BB...

Having said that, if you are more of a no-limit player, than stick to it and improve your skills there. Good players have a much greater edge in no-limit, so you will make more money there in the long run.

Still, I prefer the monotony of limit games, it allows me to multi-table much easier, without having to concentrate on how my opponents play...

[b33nz]

Blarg, in a $2/$4 game, the BB is $2 and therefore 2 x 100 = $200. You must of miscalculated the $2 for being the small blind. But the small blind is really $1.

[Bez]

Blarg is referring to BB as big bet rather that big blind here.

[WEASEL45]

BB is big bets not big blind in limit games

[TheBong]

[ QUOTE ]
Blarg, in a $2/$4 game, the BB is $2 and therefore 2 x 100 = $200. You must of miscalculated the $2 for being the small blind. But the small blind is really $1.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first step towards picking your game of choice is understanding all poker terminology that you are using.

BB = Big Bet

If I were to play limit, (I strictly play NL now), I would never sit down with less than 20 BB online. It's all a comfort level in limit because as long as you have the money on the table to cover the full play of a hand (all the way to the river without being allin in other words) then it doesn't matter how much money you have on the table.

On the other hand, in NL - I would never ever buy in for less than the maximum allowed. Doing this cripples yourself because the amount of money in front of you determines exactly how much you can win off a single opponent.

Quoting myself to a poor hapless fish tonight when he showed down his AA :

"Makes you wish you had more than $4.36 in front of you, eh?"