NL vs PL, and how to learn

I have a few questions. Let me preface my questions by saying I'm new to the game -- I've been playing for maybe 3-4 months when I can, online and locally with friends. I've read a bunch of books, including HPFAP and ToP, Caro's Fundamentals, one of Krieger's Excellence books. I also have been playing Turbo Texas Hold'em and Tournament Texas Hold'em. So I'm a newbie, but a relatively strong newbie. Obviously, since my in person play is of short duration and against just friends in the neighborhood, this isn't that relevent, but I have done very well in the games I've played in. (Up several hundred $ in NL games, and probably several hundred from 2/4 limit games as well)


First, I'm wondering what differences to think about in PL vs NL play. I've had some marginal 'intro' experience with NL, playing some .20/.40 NL with $50 buyins. Assuming for a moment that I can hold my own in a NL game but have no experience with PL, what differences should I be aware of if I play a PL game?


Second, I'm not really sure I CAN hold my own in a NL game (or a PL). Is it the experience of players here that a NL/PL player is significantly tougher than a mid-high limit structured player, like someone playing 30-60?


Third, any resources for more tips on PL/NL? There seems to be a dearth of reading material and such, although I've been reading this board for as long as I've been playing, and have found the posts here very helpful (thanks nate! /images/wink.gif). But I'm trying to climb the learning curve as fast as possible. Which leads me to...


Fourth, should I just be avoiding PL/NL until I have more real-world limit experience?


Fifth, what do people here think about Doyle Brunson's assertions in Super/System, such as suggesting a great deal of aggression when moving all-in on people with only draws even when you're a dog so you can generate more action and break people later? His advice obviously rests on buying in more than once and having a stack big enough to break people at all times, and playing against players tight enough that they'll give up marginal pots to help subsidize such aggressive play. In my limited experience, I've felt it has been important to demonstrate the willingness to move all-in on a draw or even what is clearly a weak hand compared to the nuts, so that when you do have a monster, you can get paid, but I was hoping to get more input on this. I'm not advocating blanket aggression or anything.


Lastly, in PL/NL, how necessary would you say that being able to move in on a scare card is? If, for example, you're actually sitting on high pair, and are fairly sure you're 2nd best and have been calling to the river, and the river makes a flush possibility on board, and you're relatively certain your opponent is betting a better kicker or two pair or maybe even a set, do winning NL/PL players see this as a time to make pot bets/raises, or move all-in? If so, how often? Only against tight or weak-tight players?

first--one difference is that in P/L there will be times when you want to build a pot to enable a sinificant bet later.


second--NO. To me, limit is like a different game alltogether from "big bet" games, and each can have their own tough players. AND one who is tough in one may not be tough in the other---for example, Mason is probably very tough in a limit game but could be at a disadvantage to players like Ray Zee in P/L.


third--try one of Bob Ciaffone's books. go to lower left corner this page an order thru ConJelCo.


fourth--no,no,no. To me P/L is so much better than limit, so get experience


fifth--aggression is a valuable tool. Many believe Doyle's book is THE best of all, but one thing that concerns me is that many people need some playing experience before they can absorb some of what he is saying.


lastly--yes they do BUT only when they are confident in their read of the other player and the situation. I can think of 2 players on which I would never make this play because they can not lay down a hand.