Why play limit instead of NL?

[TheTimeIsUp]

I have weighed the pros and cons of playing limit rather than NL for a while, but I just don't see why it is a better idea to do it. The only reason I can see is that limit takes less skill and the risks are much smaller...I need some input here!

[sin808]

[ QUOTE ]
limit takes less skill

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, but imo this is just wrong. It requires a different skill set, yes...but not less.

Play whichever game you prefer, no one is twisting your arm to play one over the other. Which do you like better? pick one and play it. Once you learn one, learn the other..hell, learn to play as many games well as you can.

[balkii]

[ QUOTE ]
that limit takes less skill and the risks are much smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

amazing how much one can get wrong in a single sentence. Limit is often considered a harder game than NL(if you don't believe me, ask Mason).

Limit is also known to have much larger fluctuations than NL.

[TheTimeIsUp]

Alright, thank you for pointing on my mistakes, but can you please respond to the question?..

I was thinking of eventually playing limit, just thinking if I need to do it sooner or later

[ctv1116]

Obviously limit takes a different set of poker skills than NL. The reasons to play limit is that limit poker at the higher limits are regularly available online, there is more information about how to play limit.

[eagletmr]

In my opinion limit requires much more skill, and has bigger fluctuations. You don't lose or win a whole stack in one hand, no. But it requires a completely different set of skills. Limit poker in the loose online games is very draw intensive, which requires a lot of skill in calculation and estimating future action in the hand, and so forth, and can also lead to very very large swings when you are hitting everything and when you are hitting nothing. But play what you prefer, I have friends that do limit, friends that do NL, and friends that do both, and they are all profitable. Wherever you feel comfortable and pay the bills.

[eagletmr]

To answer your question, I prefer limit because there is so much more bad limit play online, there is more information on how to play it correctly, and is more consistently profitable in the long run. It's also much easier to multi-table, 5, 6, or even 7 tables, to increase hourly rate.

[TheTimeIsUp]

Thanks for the feedback, that's very helpful.

Do you have to loosen your play a ton on limit, since you said you can't win a whole stack on any one hand?
Also, isn't it less profitable in a few ways? Like...making people pay to see draws, etc.

[PokerGoblin]

Limit and NL both apply the same poker principles, I think the main difference is the fact that ideals such as position and pot odds have different levels of importance.

Yes there's more info on limit, but that's supposedly about to change. Limit has less intricacies than NL, as they say, there's no limit like no limit.

Personally, I SUCK at limit poker, at least online I do. In casinos and home games I have fared alright. I much prefer NL, though. There's nothing like setting a guy all in on a stone cold bluff.

Not that I EVER bluff.

PG

[TheGrifter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that limit takes less skill and the risks are much smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

amazing how much one can get wrong in a single sentence. Limit is often considered a harder game than NL(if you don't believe me, ask Mason).

Limit is also known to have much larger fluctuations than NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that? (to both statements)

[dogmeat]

I have an apple and an orange on my desk. Which should I eat first, if both?

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[BottlesOf]

You are in dire need of Lee Jones' and then Ed Miller's books. GL.

[theBruiser500]

From everything I've read and from everything my friends tell me limit undoubtedly has much higher variance.

[thespecialist]

I forgot where i read this, but i believe this statement speaks boldly about the skill vs luck ratio in refrence to NL and Limit poker:

"...most casinos prefer to run limit games over NL games, because NL games tend to a) take longer and b) more importantly the bad players lose their money pool a lot quicker, thus drying up the tables..."

the statement was something to that effect.

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes there's more info on limit, but that's supposedly about to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? How so? Perhaps more to the point, what book(s) are my wife getting me for Christmas?

[bicyclekick]

Because limit is way easier for me to multitable online. I can make much more money this way and don't have to have as many specific player reads.

I haven't played enough live no-limit, but when I did in vegas it proved pretty profitable. I've played way more limit so I'm sure my skills are way better at it, but mb live no-limit is more profitable...

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
"...most casinos prefer to run limit games over NL games, because NL games tend to a) take longer and b) more importantly the bad players lose their money pool a lot quicker, thus drying up the tables..."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you meant to say because LIMIT games tend to take longer. Bad players (and thats the majority) suck out too quickly in NL, drying up the table and therefore the casino's profit.

TT in da club /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Do you have to loosen your play a ton on limit

No. In fact this misconception is one reason why pot-limit and NL players lose when they try to play limit.

Also, isn't it less profitable in a few ways? Like...making people pay to see draws, etc.

Not really. In limit you get more multiway action and your profitability goes up from multiple people chasing weak draws.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Limit is more profitable than no limit for one simple reason. Bad players go broke too quickly in NL and after a vertain amount of time, the games aren't as soft.

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
Limit is also known to have much larger fluctuations than NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to add one small clarification to this statement. The way to compare to the two games is not by the size of the blinds. For example a 10/20 limit game with blinds of 5/10 should not be compared to a NL game with blinds of 5/10.

Instead the games should be compared by the amount a good player can win. Note that this method only applies to winning players. By this methodology a 10/20 limit game is probably equivalent to around NL with 2/4 blinds.

Paul

[JKratzer]

"Limit is more profitable than no limit for one simple reason. Bad players go broke too quickly in NL and after a vertain amount of time, the games aren't as soft. "

I don't think you can take this statement at face value. If I was going to play a fish that had $100 I would choose to play him at NL vs. limit. Assume he will go broke (he's a fish) then the quicker he does, the less rake I pay. I understand what you're trying to say Kurn, but assuming a large enough pool of players, with plenty of new fish testing the water, I don't see any reason to assume limit games will be softer because they don't go broke as quick.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
but assuming a large enough pool of players, with plenty of new fish testing the water, I don't see any reason to assume limit games will be softer because they don't go broke as quick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, but there are also good players testing the waters too... and in NL they are the ones who are likely to stick around the longest and remain fixtures in a given game. The only fish in the NL games are usually the newcomers, or ones who have tons of money and don't mind losing it fast. In limit the fish often experience much more good runs, and sessions where they come out ahead at the end, encouraging them to have stay around longer. Its true that if you had an endless supply of horrible players you'd prefer to play NL with them, but each person only has a certain amount they'll lose before quitting, and there's only so many bad players out there. In limit a losing player could probably play semiregularly for his entire adult life and still be convinced that he's a breakeven or better player when he's not "running bad"... this simply can't happen at NL if you're playing with people who are much better than you. Also I would guess that the nature of the game scares the REALLY BAD players away from NL. Watch how fast an absolute novice will invariably go broke in NL, I mean somebody who knows NOTHING about holdem. That same person could easily be ahead for a week or so in a typical low-limit game. Thats why at the lowstakes NL online a good player can have increadibly low variance beating bad players, but there just aren't that many awful players when you get to medium or higher NL games. In limit you could find plenty of awful players in the 15-30 limits, or even higher.

[bdk3clash]

Excellent post, pfkaok. I don't play much no limit, mainly because I suck, but I think when starting out you're betting off concentrating on limit or PL/NL and getting really, really good at it.

When I started playing seriously like a year and a half ago, small NL games weren't as readily available as they are now in casinos.

Honestly, even the baby NL games with $1/2 blinds and a max buyin of $300 are bigger than I'd prefer to play at for a game I'm learning. I doubt most people in these games take bankroll into consideration, but as a serious player you should. Furthermore, some PL/NL players that I respect talk about bringing enough for 2 or 3 buyins for a session of PL/NL. As a beginning player, B&M no limit games, even the small ones, are probably prohibitively expensive.

Along with others, I have to completely disagree with the notion that limit somehow requires less skill than no limit or pot limit. This debate is absolutely meaningless, as it really is comparing apples to oranges. They're just different games with different skillsets. One of the great things about limit poker is that it seems incredibly simple to the beginner but is really almost infinitely complex, given the combination of hand textures and players available.

I have a lot of respect for people that play multiple forms of poker well, but as a beginner I think concentrating on one type and getting proficient at it will prime the pump for learning other games better than trying to learn a bunch at once. I think you'll just end up kind of mediocre at a bunch of games, but I could be wrong.

Also, as a beginner I would point out that although there are indeed dramatic differences between, say, a full small stakes game and a full mid-high stakes game, there's an even greater difference between a small capped-buyin NL game and a bigger game with deeper stacks.

I'd also rather my opponents

-lose a little bit on average
-lose a lot every once in a while
-win a non-negligible amount of the time
-not recognize the dramatic difference in skill between them and me
-play a lot

than
-lose a lot very quickly (say, losing $500 playing NL $1/2 with a $300 max buyin)
-be very aware that they are outmatched
-likely not play again, or not play as frequently. (This is important.)

It's a lot easier for limit players to delude themselves into thinking they are breakeven or even winning players, because a lot of the time they are. I'm sure that there are long-term losers in the $4-8 game I play at in NYC that don't think much of me even though I've reached a point where I can confidently say I play that game with a positive expectation, which is fine. I'm all but certain that they are big producers, as well--what more could you ask for than people that you are beating in the long run that don't even know they're losing?

</RAMBLE>

[6471849653]

At limit holdem (when not played full ring) one gets called by inferior hands for big money (that's not the case at big bet holdem), and one does not lose much to the one case where the sucker gets his two pair or better. Nl holdem is the smaller came, a tiny game in today's tight games - that's the reason why I don't play no-limit holdem but only heads up and shorthanded limit holdem and pot-limit omaha. In case we get some more money to the pot to start with, I might again start playing no-limit holdem.

[jayrutz2]

I believe that for many, one or the other game plays to their strength. I find myself that I get too "Scared" in nolimit, and feel less in control. In limit, my logical mind is much more attuned to the game, and I feel I get the edge not from the size of my b*lls, but but my understanding of the game.

Ironically, I play NL tourneys pretty good, I think because I don't see them as potentially bottemless pits, but more as a single bet stretched over MANY hands. NL ring games freak me out:)


So in general, i think the answer is that limit is a more thinking game and NL is a more gut and balls game (not to underestimate the thinking in NL, but think too much and I feel you can really get messed up in NL) Hopefully this last statement will generate some controversy!
K

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't disagree with you 100%. There are enough new players who gravitate towards NL to keep those games good for a lot longer than in the past. Up until this past year, you couldn't find a NL game at Foxwoods that wasn't a tourney. The other difference is the capped initial buy-ins that you see both online and B&M that didn't exist before. Losing players having to rebuy multiple times may slow down their losses a bit.

It's a matter of taste. I think I have more control over weaker players at limit, preferring to bleed them a little at a time.

Remember the old adage about shearing a sheep vs skinning him. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Because I suck at NL.

[TheTimeIsUp]

So..what you all are basically saying is that you play limit is better than NL is because...there is less risks, and more fish in limit. If you are a decent player, you should know when and when not to take risks, right? And, wouldn't you rather just double up on one sucker, rather than just slowly drain the money and pray you get the cards to do so? I mean..you don't have to neccessarily just take money from fish in NL. You can easily trap decent players, by check raising, etc. It is also somewhat easy to make good money off the good players that attempt to blind steal. I think that if you know a few of the ropes, NL can be much better than limit. Please comment on this.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
There are enough new players who gravitate towards NL to keep those games good for a lot longer than in the past. Up until this past year, you couldn't find a NL game at Foxwoods that wasn't a tourney. The other difference is the capped initial buy-ins that you see both online and B&M that didn't exist before

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're probably right about the capped buyin thing slowing the losing players losses down effectively. I just remember reading that NL used to be really popular a long time ago, but then bad players busted out really quick so limit was a way to keep the bad players alive longer... I didn't realize that all games back then were not capped buyin. I can't imagine how quickly bad players could lose if they were the stobborn type who kept rebuying enough to have everyone covered. That makes me feel a little better about the current games at Party capped at 50 buyins.

I actually prefer NL to limit just b/c I enjoy it more, and I can win much more consistantly at the Party 50 games. I started out playing live limit though, and I feel like to make the "Real" money online I'll need to hone up big time on my limit skills... I have to believe that the limit experts who multitable 15-30 at Party are bringing in more than anyone could make online at NL, unless you are a VERY, VERY elite and skilled NL player. Plus I just feel more confident that the limit games will stay good for much longer than the NL games will. Both games are great in their own ways though, and anyone who wants to be a great allaround player should develop skills to succeed at both.

[1111]

I think a good player can make more money at NL with much less variance than at limit. Also, baring government intervention, the $100 and $50 games will be good for a long time. If you are a good player, you can make 10-15 BB/100 hands at the $50's and 2 table it without much problem and make $30-45/hr which is not bad at all. The $100's are a little more tough with less games to choose from, but a good player could still beat the games at a similar rate. I'm not sure what the 15/30 guys make but cleaning up the 50's and 100's will always be there, and at a good rate, with much less variance.

[nykenny]

for much lower risk (maybe just cause i suck at NL), playing 15 ring is much more profitable than 200NL...

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
for much lower risk (maybe just cause i suck at NL), playing 15 ring is much more profitable than 200NL...

[/ QUOTE ]

1. There is less varience in NL. You could use a $4k bankroll for $200NL but You'd need like $9k one for $15/30

2. 1 table of $200NL matching up against 1 table of $15/30 a good player should earn more in NL. However multitabling it becomes a problem.