Microlimit VS. NL sng

Background: I picked up Ed Miller's Getting Started in Hold 'Em earlier this year, hoping to do a little better at my friend's monthly tournament. With a little reading and some practice on simulators, I've really picked up a lot... started placing in the money even. Got my hands on HOH: 1... great book, fun read, but it made me realize that I need start playing on line in order to play enough hands to make some progress.

Reading this forum, it seems like most people start out playing limit games appropriate in size to their bankroll. I'm reading Small Stakes Hold'em and I've been trying out some limit games, but I'm not really enjoying it. I've played some $5 sit-n-gos and they're more my speed. The tournaments give me more time to get a read on my opponent's play (players aren't popping in and out) and I have a better feel for when to play conservatively and when to play agressively. With solid play, it doesn't seem too hard to place in the money at that level, often 3-5 players are eliminated early, going all-in with relatively weak hands. And frankly, for me, tournament play is just plain more fun.


Here's my question, are there any specific reasons why beginners should play microlimit games? Am I making a mistake if I move to playing mostly sit-n-gos?

[AKQJ10]

No and no.

There are some recent threads and some wiki content (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/NLHE) about NL vs. limit for beginners if you want to seek those out. But the short answers are no and no, respectively.

[Webster]

One thing is Millers starting hands are for limit games and it's way different in SnGs. Totally different game.

I plau 99% limit and play SnGs for fun ($22) and my starting hads are WAY WAY different.

Nothing wrong with playing mostly SnGs but I would get some Tournament style books and not Ring game books.

Grinderswarehouse - NOT just another BLOG (http://www.grinderswarehouse.com)

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's my question, are there any specific reasons why beginners should play microlimit games? Am I making a mistake if I move to playing mostly sit-n-gos?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all about what you enjoy. The reason a lot of us started out in limit games is that when we started there wasn't much else to choose from. I played poker for the first time in 2000 at Paradise Poker. At that time, no-limit wasn't available (online where I was or in live games which I played a little bit later). So, that was the default, and I think that contributes to my bias toward limit - though I think there are valid reasons to start in limit if you're playing ring games.

I've been playing a lot of SNGs lately, and they are pretty profitable for me. If that's what you like, then you should play them. Spend a bunch of time in the 1-table tourney forum here and learn all you can.

I think it's a good idea to learn as many forms and styles of poker as possible since you never know where the best games will be found.

Regards,

T

[AKQJ10]

I agree 100% with SheridanCat. I started much later than him -- April 2004 -- and even then there weren't really good entry-level books on NLHE like there are now. But definitely, start with what you find most appealing and branch out.

[ThaHero]

I started with microlimits out of necessity. I had bough SSHE on a whim, and had about $20 to play with. I already had a limit book, and $20 isn't enough to play SNGs as a beginner, so I played microlimits. If you've got the roll, you could essentially play anywhere you wanted. It's all personal preference. Hell, you could start at $100NL if you wanted(though I wouldn't advise it lol)

[pzhon]

SNGs are a great way to start. In fact, I recommend playing SNGs to my poker students before they play NL ring games. Small tournaments can be quite profitable later, too; some professional players play SNGs almost exclusively.

One drawback is that it is much more complicated to learn how to play well in the early stages of a SNG than it is to learn how to beat microlimit games. You can beat microlimit games with little more than preflop selection, and the idea of value-betting top pair or better. It's much more complicated to play well postflop in a NL setting when the pot is small in relation to the stacks. In fact, many people who post in the One Table Tournament forum seem to have given up on outplaying their opponents when the blinds are small.

Both ring games and SNGs are reasonable places to learn. Both are fun, and both are profitable.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
One drawback is that it is much more complicated to learn how to play well in the early stages of a SNG than it is to learn how to beat microlimit games. You can beat microlimit games with little more than preflop selection, and the idea of value-betting top pair or better. It's much more complicated to play well postflop in a NL setting when the pot is small in relation to the stacks. In fact, many people who post in the One Table Tournament forum seem to have given up on outplaying their opponents when the blinds are small.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point! While I still am an advocate of playing whatever you like best -- after all, if your only goal is to win the WSOP Main Event, you're going to have to learn to play early-round NLHE sooner or later -- that's a good argument for directing the beginner with no clear preference toward LHE.

Some of the play I see in Pacific $2 and $4 S&Gs is BAD, though -- so automatically value-betting top pair is probably a good start toward being profitable in these games too. /images/graemlins/smile.gif