Can a frustrated, burned-out limit player find happiness playing NL?

[O Doyle Rules]

Anyone care to share any success stories of switching from limit to NL?

My frustration lies with not being able to develop my limit game to be consistently successful beyond the $3/$6 full ring game. The burnout is coming from multi-tabling $3/$6 for over 300k hands.

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

I was a winning player in limit, and now am a winning player in no-limit. There are some pros and cons to switching, I'll list some for you.

Pros
- Being able to win much more than 2bb/100 which is considered to be very good in limit, I'm at 7.6 with 18k hands at the moment and that's hardly the best you can do. Better players than I can get 10bb/100
- It's not as monotonous as limit games
- It's a thrill to go all-in and win
- You can bluff much more effectively

Cons
- You can be bluffed out much more easily
- It's not ABC poker a lot of time, so there's not always a mathematical clear-cut choice to make, having reads on opponents is much more important
- If you thought bad beats in limit were bad, think again... imagine building up your stack to 4-5xbuyin and losing it all to a lucky player in one single hand
- IMO and in my case, it's more stressful to play no-limit, you REALLY have to think about your choices. It's not just bet, raise or fold. It's bet what amount and why, raise what amount and why, and fold.

But apart from all that, if you had the discipline and skill to win at limit, I'm sure you can do good in no-limit, you'll just have to acquaint yourself with some NL-specific strategies and concepts.

I'm thinking about switching back (or doing half and half /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) to limit. It was simpler and fun in its own way. I really have no preference, I like both styles.

[theblitz]

The hardest parts that limit players switching to NL have is getting used to betting much higher and being willing to endanger all their stack.

In limit the size of the bet is, well, limited. So, you are always adding one bet to the pot.
In NL it is generally consided bad play to bet less than half the current pot and many times you will bet up to and over the current pot.
When it comes to raises it is even more so. Remember, the minimum raise is the previous player's bet. So, if he bet $5 you cannot raise to less than $10. Sounds a lot? Well, just doubling up the bet is called a mini-raise and is not considered a great move.

The other point is connected. Many times you will be putting all or a large section of your stack in danger on a single hand.
I'm sure you have seen it on TV. Players pushing all-in. Well, it does happen and quite often. You are not going to win money if you are scared of losing your stack.

Which brings me to one other point - bankroll.
There are many opinions about the amount you need but the general agreement is that you should have at least 10 times the buy-in available in your account. Otherwise, you are simply not going to be willing to put your stack at risk.

And, as O Doyle replied, you may not lose as many bad beats but, when you do, they cost much more.

In short, you need balls of steel. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Well, for the small stakes NL games, balls of hard rubber are good enough.

[O Doyle Rules]

Thanks for the response. When you are quoting a 10BB/100 win rate in NL as being good, is the following example correct?

50 NL Game

Blinds = .25/.50

50 hands/per hour

.50 (big blind) X 10 (win rate) x 1/2 (50 hands)

equals an earn rate $ 2.50/hour per table.

If this is correct, one would have to play at a much higher NL level than this to equal a 1.6/100 win rate at $3/$6 limit. This is especially true if one were to also take into account rake back return, which I know has to be alot smaller than limit poker. Does anyone have any figures as to what the rake return per hand is in the 50 NL game?

[pindawg]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the response. When you are quoting a 10BB/100 win rate in NL as being good, is the following example correct?

50 NL Game

Blinds = .25/.50

50 hands/per hour

.50 (big blind) X 10 (win rate) x 1/2 (50 hands)

equals an earn rate $ 2.50/hour per table.

If this is correct, one would have to play at a much higher NL level than this to equal a 1.6/100 win rate at $3/$6 limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe a BB in NL is still 2 x the big blind, so

(.5x2x10)/2

[steaknshake925]

when i started playing seriously i tried to move up the limit ladder, starting from 1/2. i hit a wall at...2/4! just couldnt win. after dropping a couple hundred BBs there, even with the help of some very decent bonuses, i switched to NL. started from .25/.50 and now am at 2/4nl after a few months, and just started to take selective shots at 5/10nl.

for u or most anyone willing to put in some time and learn the basics of NL, the switch shouldnt be that hard. a big factor is that at small stakes, generally the play at NL is alot worse than at limit. so at least up until say 2/4nl, NL is gonna be alot easier to play than limit.

[steaknshake925]

some cons u listed:
[ QUOTE ]
It's not ABC poker a lot of time, so there's not always a mathematical clear-cut choice to make, having reads on opponents is much more important

[/ QUOTE ]

the OP shouldnt have to worry about having to break out of ABC mold if he doesnt want to. ABC readless poker should be a very winning style at SSNL.

[ QUOTE ]
If you thought bad beats in limit were bad, think again... imagine building up your stack to 4-5xbuyin and losing it all to a lucky player in one single hand

[/ QUOTE ]

of course, also imagine grinding an entire session gettin no hands at all, and then suddenly doubling or tripling up in a single hand. you know, glass is half full, half empty.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO and in my case, it's more stressful to play no-limit

[/ QUOTE ]

this is probly debatable, but if OP multitables then i think limit can be more stressful, since u play alot more hands to the river and have alot more decisions to make. i find lowlimit NL easier to multitable than limit since im not making any reads anyway.


i agree with all of ur pros /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the response. When you are quoting a 10BB/100 win rate in NL as being good, is the following example correct?

50 NL Game

Blinds = .25/.50

50 hands/per hour

.50 (big blind) X 10 (win rate) x 1/2 (50 hands)

equals an earn rate $ 2.50/hour per table.

If this is correct, one would have to play at a much higher NL level than this to equal a 1.6/100 win rate at $3/$6 limit. This is especially true if one were to also take into account rake back return, which I know has to be alot smaller than limit poker. Does anyone have any figures as to what the rake return per hand is in the 50 NL game?

[/ QUOTE ]

1.6bb/100 @ $3/6 = $9.6

$50nl 6-max (infinitely easier than full ring) if you could win at about 7bb/100 that would equal around the same because you get 75-80 hands an hour in. Although rakeback is a lot smaller per table, so keep that in mind.

[IRV]

I like switching from time to time between NL and limit. NL is my favorite. NL IMO requires more concentration and you always have to be aware of who you are playing with but limit is more mechanical for me.

Also, try a new game ... stud, razz, etc... then return to holdem when you get that itch.

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

"a big factor is that at small stakes, generally the play at NL is alot worse than at limit. so at least up until say 2/4nl, NL is gonna be alot easier to play than limit."

Part of that is because in limit your opponents sometimes get proper odds to call on their kooky draws, but obviously, they won't know that. But in no-limit, if YOU'RE a good player, your opponents are almost always going against the odds versus pot-sized bets.