limit hold'em isn't that bad

[Hung]

Yesterday I played limit poker, 6-handed. $0.50-$1
I have played it before. I have never liked limit. But I think it's ok. The average pot of this game is $5-$7, which are bigger pots then the NL 0.10-0.25 game. Maybe it's shortterm luck. I won $20 in half an hour. I thought I was lucky and left the table. After a few minutes I came back and won another $30. Woehoe, maybe I should play limit instead of no limit.

I have a few questions. When played 6 handed, should I player looser and see more flops? I also noticed that they bet even when they don't have a pair just to steal the pot. Limit is more dangerous because you or someone else is always drawing to something. Yesterday I won a huge pot. But I got lucky. I got 4 of a kind tens against a full house aces. We capped till the end.

What are the main differences between a full table (10 players) and 6 handed? Should I better play the full table or the short handed one?

[CtPokerPro]

We don't play much else BUT limit here in Ct., and i suspect elsewhere in the US. The only comment I wanted to make regarding your post was that I have always found limit to be much easier to consistently win at if you are very selective with starting hands, and don't get aggressive unless you have caught some of the flop. I always loosen my starting requirements for short handed, but as long as i am the tightest preflop player at the table, I usually end up getting the money.

I have never quite understood the European addiction to NL and PL. The variance is too high, and in my opinion, luck is more of a factor in bigbet games than limit games.

I really admire the top NL tourney players that we all read about and follow, but I feel like I have so much more control playing Limit.

This is just an opinion though.

[Hung]

I mentioned this in one of my previous posts.
I think that too. It's easier to win consistently at limit poker. Because the odds are always in your favour if you play correctly. How many times have you lost your whole stack with AK when you're against trips? That's the only hand that scares me to dead. I always raise a lot with AK preflop and hope to make small pockets fold.

[dux]

Hung, AK is much much better in limit. In limit poker, it is called "big slick". In No Limit, and I'm not sure about Pot Limit, they call AK "walkin' back to Texas" or Houston, or something. Not hard to go broke with that hand.

[Hung]

Isn't it called big slick too at NL and PL?
Where does the name big slick come from?

[lorinda]

Years of arguing this should have taught me, but it hasn't so in I jump. (It's like arguing whether the C64 or ZX Spectrum was better..when obviously it was the Speccy)

I honestly find that in NL ring games, my stack steadily builds up, whereas in limit, it could go anywhere and I have no control over where it ends up.

I have a very poor win rate at limit, which doesn't help matters, but in a 1/2 session I can easily go $100 down or $110 up (I do play long sessions) whereas in no-limit, anything more than $30 down is a nightmare, and Id still expect to be $80 or so up at the end of an equivalent good session.

The difference being, in limit you are trying to get paid as every card falls, meaning you are actually gambling, whereas in no limit, you are just waiting for the one hand to double you through, which, if played correctly will be something like KJ vs J3 on a QT98x board, which is more like stealing than gambling.

In no-limit the suckouts are less because you can wait until the river before going all in.

Disclaimer: I am aware this is very simplified.

Lori

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The main difference is that in limit, drawing hands can be played profitably after the flop, which adds to your win rate, but also to your variance.

I prefer no-limit in a tournament situation. I dislike having to call a turn bet with a flush draw even with correct pot odds in a limit tournament when I know that 3 out of four times all I'm doing is depleting my stack, yet I hate folding with correct odds. The decisions on drawing hands are much easier/less stressful at NL.

The other side is that players who get to used to NL and PL tend to make bad decisions at limit in multi-way pots, just because those situations come up much more in limit.

[gdaily]

Hi,

CtPokerPro, I am sorry, but you are dead wrong!

a) The variance is actually LESS in NL/PL than in limit - what people fail to understand is that a 5-10 Limit game must be compared to a game rougly around 0.5-1.00 NoLimit. Both games will have pots where participaying players will bet around 50-100$ per pot - but you will do a more waiting and trapping at NL. You can not compare a 5-10 Limit with a 5-10 NoLimit.

b) Skill is way more in Nolimit, and even more at Potlimit. Ask any oldtimer why - and ask yourself why there are so many limit games spread, but so few nolimit ones. The answer is that the fishes will be killed in Nolimit, but in Limit they will book a win every now and then. Mason Malmuth writes about this alot in Poker Essay 2 (I think it was #2) and explains why Nolimit is bad for poker in the long run

c) Dont mix NoLimit cashgames and Nolimit tourneys. They play way different. In tourneys you have to take action, have to be lucky (as well in limit tourneys). In cashgames you can afford to wait.

d) Finally, a good way to make money at poker - Learn Limit well, and go to Europe and play - we suck at limit poker - or go to USA and play Potlimit - they suck at that game. Holdem and holdem is not the same game, both uses two cards, but that is about the only similarity. Pot& Nolimit has it skills, Limit has a way different set of skills. Both is a game of skill, and the good player will win in the end. In limit it will take a little longer, in Nolimit it (may) go to fast.

I really advice the reading of the book mentioned above

best regards
Ola

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I agree on a,c, and d.

On b, I think you miss the point. Both games are equally skillful. The point Mason made was that the weak players lose their money *faster* at NL and PL, thus they become discouraged and stop playing. Thus PL and NL games will tend to dry up faster. At limit they post wins often enough to keep coming back.

You can shear a sheep many times, but only skin him once.

[gdaily]

Hi,

well, I might have difficulties to explain what I mean - English is my third language, and Im having difficulties finding the right words.

But my main objection was agains that NL was more of a luck game - if it was, of course all the fishes would prefer NL, right?

/Ola

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Ola,

I agree. No-limit is not a luck game at all. In limit, more people will chase getting the wrong pot odds because it's only one extra bet. In the long run, that makes it a good game for better players.

Sklansky has written that he believes that limit is a more complex game than no-limit. Doyle Brunson thinks the opposite is true. My opinion is that each game is complex in its own way, and each requires a different set of skills.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Hung:

First, I have argued for many years that not only is limit hold 'em a better game than no limit, but it is strategically more complex as well. But you did get lucky to win that much at those limits in such a short period of time.

A six handed game is like a ten handed game after the first four players have passed. So the major differences are you don't have to play against someone from an early position where their hand selection should be tighter than in a late position, and you won't have as many multiway pots where limit multiway concepts become very important. (In no limit these concepts rarely if ever come into play.) And of course, you will never have to act from an early position. (Note: Under the gun in a six handed game is roughly the same as being first in from a middle position in a ten handed game.)

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi KurnsonofMogh:

Skill and edge are not the same thing. Skill has something to do with how difficult it is to come up with the best play. Edge has something to do with how big is your advantage once you come up with the best play. In my opinion, from a strategic point of view, limit requires more skill, but no limit produces larger edges (both against weak players). However, I do agree that no limit can be psychologically more difficult.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi GD...:

Variance nor win rate is what you should be looking at. It's the relationship between these two parameters that really counts. The mean (win rate) divided by the standard deviation (the square root of the variance) is known as the "coefficient of variation" or cv. In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics there is a discussion of this. If the cv is too large, skill predominates too much and the games tend to burn out because the weak players lose their money too quickly -- no limit hold 'em. If the cv is too low, no one can win consistenly enough and the core of regulars needed to develop to start and keep games going can't develop or hold together -- $40-$80 stud with a $10 ante.

Based on my experience, a cv of about 10 percent for an expert is just about right. But in some circumstances it can be as high as 15 percent. Again see my book.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi KurnsonofMogh:

You wrote:

My opinion is that each game is complex in its own way, and each requires a different set of skills.

That's certainly true, especially if you are comparing standard ring games, and not a tournament format.

Best wishes,
Mason

[lorinda]

I always remember a quote from caro about skill from when i just started playing.

"Two people play chess for money"

Winner takes the money.

"Two people play chess for money, only now, after the game they throw a dice, if the dice comes up '6' then the result is reversed"

Certainly the best player now has less of an edge, but the skill in the game is still the same.

Lori

[jamesburke]

Limit holdem and no limit holdem are almost like 2 different games...like playing omaha vs stud. In limit holdem, sandbagging and mixing up your game will not win you as much money as no limit will. Personally i find limit holdem boring, you play your hand straight forward and mix a bluff and a check raise in once in a while and and win a couple bb's an hr, whereas in no limit every hand dictates a different seneriao where u can go broke if u miss a hand, but when u make the nuts the u will be paid. It all depends on what type of person u are in life, try them both for 10,000 hands, check your win rates, and bottom line check how comforatable u are in playing each game. If your bored to death then limit is not your game...

[CtPokerPro]

Mason,

This may or may not be OT, but i really enjoyed your 'fit or fold' column this month. I think it is ON topic because the 'fit or fold' strategy is the meat of my game. I have learned to vary it enough to not be so predictable, but the decisions to play for the draw in NL and PL were the basis of my classification of NL and PL being more luck based.

I respect your opinions gdaily, but please note that my post ended with a disclaimer that the ideas I presented were just my opinion.

This is an old argument that i feel is not as black and white as some seem to argue.

[Your Mom]

MAybe it is just me but i find no limit ring games extremely boring. A lot more to figure out in limit.

[Hung]

I don't compare limit and NL. It's another game. Like omaha or hold'em. I'm starting to play limit (a little) because I wont find any small NL or PL games when I come to Vegas. I have to start practicing limit hold'em. Yesterday I got lucky again at the 6 handed game. I got a msg from jasonHoldEm and I totally agree with what he says. In a 6 handed game it's important to watch the players. I try to figure why they bet or raise. It's easier because there're only 5 players. I only play one table when I play limit. I'll let you know if I keep winning. Shortterm luck can last for a few days.
I wont play this game at UB for a couple of days. Because I need to win my $120 at stars. Free money is waiting for me.

[jamesburke]

like i said it's apples and oranges u have to find ur niche..

[dogsballs]

I have never quite understood the European addiction to NL and PL. The variance is too high, and in my opinion, luck is more of a factor in bigbet games than limit games.

hmmmm...you really think so..? I've won every one of my last fifteen or so PLO sessions. Can't imagine I'd be able to do that at limit. The wins are steady, except for occasional big jumps when a fish pays me off or a chunk. Short term variance at limit is much greater.

dogs

[gdaily]

Hi Mason,

I know, I have actually read all your recent books, all of them! But it is one thing for me to read and understand your works (wich I do), but my language skills "prevents" me from explaining your points in english to others.

We both agree that bankroll requirement is less for potlimit and nolimit games than limit, for the winning player. If you are a losing player, no matter how big your bankroll is, wont help :-)

For me, that translates to that there are less "LUCK" in no-limit than in Limit - as opposite to the original poster wrote. The OP said it was more luck in NL than in Limit. For me, the opposite of LUCK is SKILL. And the skill differance is magnified in NL compared to Limit.

However, I would say that that Limit is a far more complicated game than NL. However, complicatited is not by definitio nsame as skill.

regards
Ola

[gdaily]

Opps, sorry, it was not OP who said that, it was the firs who replies, Cpokerpro..

regards
Ola

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Gdaily:

First, your English seems pretty good. I wish I could speak more than one language.

You wrote:

For me, the opposite of LUCK is SKILL.

This is where I disagree a little. Certain games might require great skill to play well but only allow the expert to obtain a small edge at best. The example I gave was $40-$80 stud with a $10 ante. This game is also sometimes played with a $5 ante. Here the edge can be very large for the same player against the same opponents. But his skill level is still the same.

Best wishes,
Mason

[tdiddy]

Online, for example at PartyPoker.com the .5/1 NL table has a maximum buy-in of $50. Seems like this format will keep the fish in action for a longer period of time, right?

Any thoughts on how the max buy-in tables are different from an ordinary NL table?

[lefty rosen]

Poker has a point you can be a consistent grinder and win for a stretch and one bad day, and half your roll is shot on a two out beat. With limit if you play statistically strong cards especially online you will win. I almost equate to seeing the tide rise.........

[MtSmalls]

Just to throw my 2 cents in, I think for me, learning no limit in a tournament setting, the difference boils down to control. in a limit game (any limit game) you can't significantly control the odds your opponent is getting to call you. If you know that he's on a flush draw with one card to come, and you have one or two pair, you can only bet the limit, which may give him/her 3-1 or 4-1 or 10-1 depending on the previous action, making it a smart play to draw at the flush (or some other 'suckout').

With no limit, or pot-limit, you simply bet enough to force the other player to either take the worst of it (which you like) or fold (which you love). Of course, this increases the psychological factors in the game, over a limit structure. That isn't to say that psychology doesn't exist at limit poker, only that it is only of significant use at the higher limits, against sophisticated players.

A classic hold'em example would be having pocket Kings (or Queens even) in late position after several limpers. In limit (say 10-20), if I raise to $20, the next player to call is going to get 6.5-2 odds (3 limpers, my 20, 15 in blinds) or better than 3-1, if they call the next caller gets 4-1 or more if its one of the blinds. Obviously in no-limit, I can raise to say, $200 giving the next caller barely even money to call. Hence No-limit should reduce classic limit suckouts, though they have some of their own. My experience is that properly played, the better starting hands win more often (I'm talking about A-K vs A-J, not coin flips like A-K vs small pairs).

I consider myself a fair limit player in my chosen games, and I am really enjoying the opportunity to learn no-limit, at least from a tournament perspective. Maybe one of these days, I'll sit down in a NL ring game, but not for a while yet.

[mojolang]

Mason,

your advice about how to vary play is really great. I think if you do another adition of HPFAP you should add it. (how to think about how to play 10 handed vs. 6 vs. 4) I know you discuss it briefly in hte shorthanded section but you don't go into too much depth. I did what you advise but I did so subconsciously. I think it would be a nice page long addition to misc. topics. Also, very much looking forward to the Hellmuth (and amarillo slim) review.

Joe