Why Play Limit

[josie_wales]

I have a serious question.

Why play Limit-Hold-em?

I would love to hear the responses as to why to play limit as opposed to NL Holdem/PL Holdem.

As a Limit-converted-to-NL-player, I remember most situations where I was ahead and betting/checkraising it was rare that a players call on a chase was not correct odds-wise.

Additionally, when I finally hit a big hand, getting paid off in terms of "BB's" instead of "stacks" can be a let down.

On the flip side, I know that limit allows for one to draw at big hands getting the proper odds more frequently.

So, does it boil down to your playing style? How you would rather play?

Why wouldnt someone rather be able to have the option to bet ANY amount that they want in order to manipulate the other players into folding/calling or making an incorrect fold/call?

Why wouldnt someone want the ability to take a stack?

Why wouldnt someone want the ability to protect a vulerable hand?

Or to trap someone into losing their stack?

I am not trying to come off as 'holier-than-thou' or to say that "NL is a much better game" or anything along those lines.

I truly am curious as to why anyone would chose a Limit Game over a NL game.

I honestly look forward to your responses.

Thanks all,

JW

[bicyclekick]

cause there is much more money to be made for a person with my skills...cause you can play more tables and not risk losing it all.

The big nl games are tough...while the big limit games are relatively much easier.

[josie_wales]

Bicylce,
I had a feeling that the [ QUOTE ]
not risk losing it all

[/ QUOTE ] was going to come into play.

In fact, I thought that would end up being the leading reason -- we'll see.

You also mentioned about the big Limit games being easier than the big NL games.

The thing is...You do not have to play as big of a NL game comparitively to a Limit game to get similar pot sizes.

Many $2-$4 NL and $5/$10 NL games have pot sizes that are quite comparible to the $10/20 games I think.

jw

[lil feller]

I think for most people that play to win, not necessarily pros, just like to make money, the leading factor is bankroll size. I can sit down in a 20-40 game and just have a terrible run of cards, keep missing while they keep hitting, and leave a 50-60 BB loser and have it not effect my bankroll in the slightest. One hand of NL can affect the bankroll of most recreational winning players, and they don't like the idea of losing their entire night's stake the first time their top set gets chased down by the guy that flopped an open ended straight flush draw and called the all in bet. Limit is safer, and while you certainly LIMIT how quickly you can win, you also limit how quickly you can lose. Just works better for some people. Interesting question...

lf

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
You also mentioned about the big Limit games being easier than the big NL games.

The thing is...You do not have to play as big of a NL game comparitively to a Limit game to get similar pot sizes.

Many $2-$4 NL and $5/$10 NL games have pot sizes that are quite comparible to the $10/20 games I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true, but those pots aren't being built by multiple people putting in a fixed amount. Most big no-limit pots are built between two, maybe three people, and rarely are you ever getting 2:1 or better on the bet you put into a pot. If you win a $300 pot in a 2-4 NL game, its probably because you put in $150 of it.

lf

[andyfox]

Saw a guy in the restroom the other day who I hadn't seen in a while. He said hello. I asked him how he was doing. He said losing. (I didn't mean about poker, but that's how poker players take "how're you doing?".) I asked, "No limit?" And he said yes.

He asked if I now play no-limit and I told him no. He said try it, once you do, you won't go back. I asked him if he found the games slow-paced. He said yes, you need a lot of time and a lot of patience.

I play limit because it's what I grew up with, it's what I know. I'm a conservative guy, so I think limit suits my persona. I watch the no-limit games sometimes on a break. Each hand takes forever. Each decision on the turn and river takes forever. Usually, the action goes either:

-Limp, limp, raise all fold.

Limp, limp raise, all fold except one guy who comes over the top, and now the original raiser folds.

[josie_wales]

Very nice response lil.

What if bankroll were out of the question (I know it cant be) but lets say it is?

Is it a risk/bankroll issue?

Are they any arguements aside from risk/bankroll for why Limit is better than NL or why better players play limit?

jw

[lil feller]

Personally, I think limit is much more difficult to play well. Look at it like this. I think everybody on this forum will agree that to play 7-card stud expertly is much more difficult than playing Hold'em expertly. That being assumed, it stands to reason then that an expert 7-card stud player will make more per hand then an expert hold'em player (given comprable limit, keep in mind the stud has one extra big bet round every hand) because the game is more difficult and players are more likely to make mistakes. The expert has a larger edge over his competition.

Limit is much harder to play at an expert level, because the bet is fixed. Most big decisions in NL are clear cut, and happen either pre-flop or on the flop. All other things being equal, an expert limit player stands to have a larger edge over his opposition than an expert NL player (again, all other aspects being equal). Combine that with the fact that you see close to triple the hands, and I think you have a strong argument for playing limit.

lf

[Alexthegreat]

The money is not comparable....In NL you are usually getting 1-1 on your money, at the best of times maybe 2-1....Over the long term a good limit player will make much more than a good NL player, if they are playing at comparable stakes.....

[Alexthegreat]

If bankroll was out of the question, the ideal game would be a high stakes NL game, something along the lines of 100/200 I imagine.....There is enough money in that kind of game to make it worthwhile for a time....But
I would say that if bankroll were not a question, big buy-in tourneys would be the way to go, wouldn't it??

[TStoneMBD]

the variance in no limit is greater than in limit.

it is difficult to multitable nolimit online because you need to have a much better understanding of your opponents than you do in limit.

i believe that learning limit before nolimit will accelerate a players learning curve when learning other games. limit is a mathematical game, while no limit is psychological. if you take the time to learn the fundamentals of limit through the complex math, you should be able to understand the core elements of how to profit in other games faster.

i believe that it is easier for a novice to jump into nolimit then limit. nolimit is about instincts, and a novice should have already developed a fair amount of natural nolimit instincts simply by his life experiences. its very unlikely that a novice would have developed the mathematical experience necessary to beat limit, unless he was highly educated in math and logic.

nolimit is on the boom. players are jumping into this new game just waiting for the sharks to eat them alive. nolimit games are developing at a faster rate then ever before, and its quite possible that there will be more variety in what nolimit stakes you would like to play in, then your choices of limit.

overall, i think that it comes down to personal preference. quite franky, i enjoy playing nolimit moreso than limit, but make more money playing limit because my casino does not regularly spread any highstake nolimit games. therefore, ive dedicated the majority of my time to limit. however, i do believe that a dedicated player will learn all poker at a faster pace if he approaches the complex math in limit. a good size portion of the nolimit specialists who are famous are broke because they cannot perform in cash games. limit players are generally the ones who make the money, and i believe they can go on to conquer nolimit if they dedicate themselves to the game, simply because they have spent their time analysing the intricacies of equity, and not the intricacies of human response.

[astroglide]

when i began playing, NL games were completely unpopular (not in my cardrooms, not online)

[billyjex]

It looks like this hasn't been said yet -- but I play limit because I find it more fun and exciting.

I play limit for the profit, easier to multitable, etc..

but when I play NL home games, I find myself bored to death. You get to make so many more decisions in limit. I like the challenge of getting more bets in the pot, I like being aggressive every hand.

[anatta]

Most of us learned limit since it was the only game in town. Within the last two years, there has been an explosion of great no-limit games. From what I see, these games feature a lot of younger players who haven't paid their dues grinding it out for hours on end at the 20-40. A good player has more of an edge in these games I think. Mason has written that no-limit games died out because of the big edge good players had, so now that there are so many going, I think these games are more profitable. I also think that the poker explosion won't fade anytime soon, once you're hooked, you're hooked so these games are here to stay.

I haven't had the time to really study no-limit enough to feel confident playing it so I stick to limit. I might get into it, but I still have goals to meet in limit, like moving up to higher limits. I think a new player trying to build a roll would do well in the small buy-in no limit games and $10 buy-in online tournies, along with the sit-n-goes.

[sublime]

the variance in no limit is greater than in limit.

i dont think that is true, although i could be mistaken.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
Saw a guy in the restroom the other day who I hadn't seen in a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where you looking up or down?

Just kidding Andy. Just kidding.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
the variance in no limit is greater than in limit.

i dont think that is true, although i could be mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's certainly not true or in very deep-stacked nl games (or so I here). However, I can see that I might be true in the Party games where you can only buy in for 50 BB's. They high blind structure relative to the stacks takes a lot of the skill out of the game and is going to increase variance a lot. I don't play no limit at all, so I can't comment on exactly how the variance compares to limit, though.

[MelchyBeau]

NL is much more stressful than Limit.

Lots of fish in limit.

Easier to multitable imho.

Melch

[willie24]

there is more money to be made in limit.

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldnt someone rather be able to have the option to bet ANY amount that they want in order to manipulate the other players into folding/calling or making an incorrect fold/call?


[/ QUOTE ]

because your opponents also have that option.

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldnt someone want the ability to take a stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

you do. it's just more spread-out. said another way: although the single-hand profit potential is higher in NL, the hourly average is usually higher in limit (depending of course on game/player/limit etc)

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldnt someone want the ability to protect a vulerable hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

because sacrificing that ability allows you to attack your opponents vulnerable hands.

All in all limit is often more profitable, simply because it is a more difficult game, and therefore your average opponent will make more mistakes. you did a great job of pointing out the difficulties.

[ QUOTE ]
How you would rather play?

[/ QUOTE ]
if i was playing for fun, not money, I would rather play NL

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
the variance in no limit is greater than in limit.


[/ QUOTE ]


isn't it the other way around?

[edtost]

it is most definately false.

[runnerunner]

A lot of people cannot handle the swings in their bankroll they get when playing no limit games. If you flop the nut straight in a no-limit game and get all of your money in, someone with a set is going to catch you almost 30% of the time and you are going to lose all of your money. In a limit game you are going to lose several BB's.

Bad players also bleed their money out more slowly playing limit and their mistakes are not as magnified. Making one horrible play in NL can cost them their entire stack, while making loose calls and chasing without odds are losing plays, but don't cost you all of your money, so bad players are going to gravitate towards limit. This should make the limit games more profitable.

[imported_stealthcow]

i very rarely now go on tilt in limit poker

but in no limit, some hands have been known to set me a little "loco"

i could let my friends elaborate

stealthcow-

[Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
One hand of NL can affect the bankroll of most recreational winning players, and they don't like the idea of losing their entire night's stake the first time their top set gets chased down by the guy that flopped an open ended straight flush draw and called the all in bet.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but everyone should call an all-in with a straight-flush draw in a cash game. You're only losing to a set (And even against a set you're only a 60/40 dog).

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to burst your bubble, but everyone should call an all-in with a straight-flush draw in a cash game. You're only losing to a set (And even against a set you're only a 60/40 dog).

[/ QUOTE ]
If by "losing", you mean you are an underdog to win the hand, then this isn't true. There are other cases where your straight flush draw can be an underdog. Off the top of my head, here's one example where you have an open-ended straight flush draw and are only winning about 30% of the time but aren't against a set:
http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b=5c+6c+Ah&d=&h=3c+4c%0D%0AAc+Qc

I agree with your main point though, that you aren't laying it down on the flop.

[Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to burst your bubble, but everyone should call an all-in with a straight-flush draw in a cash game. You're only losing to a set (And even against a set you're only a 60/40 dog).

[/ QUOTE ]
If by "losing", you mean you are an underdog to win the hand, then this isn't true. There are other cases where your straight flush draw can be an underdog. Off the top of my head, here's one example where you have an open-ended straight flush draw and are only winning about 30% of the time but aren't against a set:
http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b=5c+6c+Ah&d=&h=3c+4c%0D%0AAc+Qc

I agree with your main point though, that you aren't laying it down on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I didn't take into consideration the top pair/nut flush draw hand and the nut flush draw hand. Still, I would need to have a deep chip stack to lay down an OESD flush draw to an all-in bet against a deep stack.

[skp]

Ya, that was going to be my response: NL is a yawner.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
the variance in no limit is greater than in limit.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




isn't it the other way around?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is. NL variance is lower than limit variance.

Lawrence

[ggbman]

A lot of it comes down to your playing style. Some situations are profitable in limit that just are not so with no-limit, especially taking into account deep stack theory etc... A lot of no limit players take refuge in the fact that they can protect their hand which they cannot do as well in limit. However you have to be able to make much more difficult laydowns in NL. On the flip side, playing limit you must adjust your style to attain maximum profitability knowing what hands you can and cannot get your opponents off. Also, being able to make a good read and call down with a marginal hand will come into play more often. Each game has it nuances, i think it comes down to which suites the individual player best.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
NL variance is lower than limit variance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this going to be true even in the super shortstacked (50 BB buyin) games that Party has? I know that historically everyone always said that NL was low variance, but that's because it was always played with deal stacks where there was a lot more skill involved throughout the hand.

[Goodnews]

very true. just get a spare 20 or so dollars, sit down at a shorthanded 1/2 or 3/6 NL game and wait to double up. I forgot where I read it, but a short stack all-in usually induces a caller.

Don't follow my logic? Take a walk with me...

Exhibit A:
You have a stack of $500 at a 3/6 NL table and all your opponents do too. Your raises and bets are taken with heed and you won't go up against rags thats for sure. Your chances of winning an additional 20 dollars is mediocre at best and hence making money is tougher than it could be.

Exhibit B:
You have a stack of $30 which is dwarfed by your neighbour's chips on both your sides. There are usually two perceptions which the others will acknowledge you with. 1) Some idiot who wants to double up fast and plays anything, or 2) Some idiot who wants to double up fast by playing only great hands.

Finally if you go all in preflop, you get to see two free cards. Why? Well a standard respectable bet is roughly around the area of 3 to 5 BB. Remember you are at a 3/6 table and a 30 dollar PFR from situation A would not get a caller from someone who thinks K3o is good enough for your junk. And if someone with a premium hand calls you, well they were going to call you down regardless of what you had. Anyways, back of subject, an all in with 30 dollars, you get to see turn and river while a PFR of 30 may not even see the flop.

PS I started with no-limit, since I am one of the young bucks who came a little earlier than the wave from WPT and WSOP, and trying to educate myself in limit since I recognize its superior money making potential.

[elysium]

hi jw

well, actually some nl games are more like limit games, and some limit games are a lot like nl. it really depends on how much money you are willing to put at risk. if you had a million dollars to blow, almost any nl game would be more like a limit game, but if you only had a couplke hundred, then any 30-60 is effectively a nl.

you see jw, in this world there are only 2 kinds of players; limit and no limit. which type of player you really are depends on how much money you can comfortably afford to gamble, as opposed to that of your opponents. if you have million in chips in front of you, but the next highest stack is only 20 bucks, you're playing limit; your opponent is playing no limit, even if it were a 10-20 game instead.

everything is very relative.

[TStoneMBD]

ok i guess im wrong by the majority. i suppose i am using the term variance incorrectly. in nolimit, the swings are greater, and therefore more stressful. a winning poker player will win more bb's/hour than in limit, but can lose his whole stack in one hand while that cannot happen in limit. its been said that you need 1500bb's in order to play no limit, which would be $15000 for 5/10, but you only need $12000 for 20/40. if the variance is lower, why would this be? i never got into the whole variance calculations because i play live, and doesnt interest me very much.

[edtost]

5/10 nl is a very big game, 20/40 is not. for instance, a 1/2 nl game probably plays about as big as a 10/20 limit. 20/40 would be more comparable to a 2/5 than a 5/10.

[Bob Moss]

[ QUOTE ]
the variance in no limit is greater than in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking over my Pokertracker stats for 3/6 and 1/2 NL 6-max, both on Party, my SD/100 is about 3 times my winrate for NL, and 8 times my winrate for 3/6.

Bob

[Educator]

Most of what i've read in this discussion is not very accurate. I played limit quite successfully in card clubs as a prop for 12 years. I now play only no-limit on line. Limit does allow you to get involved in more pots longer since the pot odds often dictate correct calls when you are the underdog. Limit on line is much faster moving then in the clubs and the 6 handed games I am in often get 100 hands or more /hr. I am playing no limit because I work and can't afford the variance of limit games. It is very clear that the variance in correctly played no limit is much lower. Only an idiot would put his entire bankroll at play. So what if playing 1-2 you lose a $100 stack every so often. The player who calls $20 for a gut shot in no-limit is giving you $20 ten times for every time he makes you cry, and he often does it with only $20 left in front of him. Bad beats are much rarer since you are almost always up against fewer players and the pot does not offer reasonable odds for anyone who is halfway thinking about the game. The trouble with no-limit for many players is that Malcolm was absolutely correct: the game requires a lot more skill than limit and the bad players lose all of their money too fast. This is the reason card clubs generally never offered no-limit before the WSOP made no- limit so popular. They did not want players going broke since a broke player doesn't pay time or the drop. They wanted a game in which bad players could get lucky and succeed and given the pot odds that even the worst players are receiving in limit games, the clubs could reasonably expect them to stay around for a while, or get lucky long enought to get hooked. When there is a wild gambalaro at my no limit table I am overjoyed. He is almost invariable broke within an hour or two, and if he hurts me it is likely to happen once or twice, not five times. Play limit if you enjoy it, but no-limit is a much less riskier bet for an equivalent return, if you know what you are doing. I am sure this is true at higher stakes than what I can afford to play now, but I don't have the personal experience to back it up.

One more comment. I do agree it is harder to play multiple tables at no-limit since it is more important to know the players, but in my experience attention to the other players is worth so much that it compensates for not playing several games at once. You've got to know that you should lay down QQ when a strong player goes all in, but when the player who loves going all in every third hand offers you his money and you have QQ all you can do is call and say thank you (unless of course you are really unlucky--s**t happens).

[Clarkmeister]

More game selection and higher average $/hr expectation.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
5/10 nl is a very big game, 20/40 is not. for instance, a 1/2 nl game probably plays about as big as a 10/20 limit. 20/40 would be more comparable to a 2/5 than a 5/10.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really questionable statement, especially if the NL game doesn't play extremely deep.

scrub

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5/10 nl is a very big game, 20/40 is not. for instance, a 1/2 nl game probably plays about as big as a 10/20 limit. 20/40 would be more comparable to a 2/5 than a 5/10.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really questionable statement, especially if the NL game doesn't play extremely deep.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree and would like to add that in 20 games i see the average pots may even be bigger than the 5-10 game if its deep and playing rather tight...if its loose and you get multiway pots then for sure its a huge game...but just 2 people in a pot raised to $50 preflop leaves $100 in there...usually a whole lot of mony isn't going in there and playing 20 you can usually count on (in fairly loose games) 3-6 people in each pot for usually 2 bets...and thats not even postflop yet...

although, one thing to note is that pots grow exponentially in no limit whereas the rate of growth in limit decreases as the streets progress....kinda like looking at a graph of e^x for no limit and e^(-x) for limit (for rate of growth of the pot...i.e. that would be the first derivative of the pot size graph)

-Barron

[fnord_too]

Great first post. Welcome to the forums.

[mmcd]

<font color="white">____________ _______________________ </font> $

[Peter_rus]

Limit is faster and don't need deeper reads on player as math much more important than psychology here. I play now 6 full tables and can lurk in 2+2 forum simultaneously. Sometimes i make some math researches to improve my general lines. I play nearly 380 hands/hour and playing full time - it's very rare im down after a week of playing. Of course my winrate in comparing to my SD is lower than these parameters in NL as i play many borderline hands. Though, I suspect that main parameter isn't variance per 100 hands, but variance per week is way more important for my soul health. And multitabling limit games offer me to be winner in very short time. NL doesn't allow you multytabling so far and im pretty sure limit makes more money in terms money/hour than NL even though NL makes more money in terms of money/100 hands in the same conditions.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
math much more important than psychology here

[/ QUOTE ]

i must be really lucky then

[willie24]

sincere thanks for that picture/icon thing

[WillMagic]

Because four-street poker games are more interesting than 1-2 street poker games.

Will