Why limit instead of no limit?

hey everyone, I am relatively new to the poker scene and the experienced player that is somewhat mentoring me is a solid limit player (winning online $30-$60). He has urged me to get into poker, low limit hold'em to be more exact. I have done so, and feel I am learning at a reasonable rate. I have another friend that is one of those loud mouths that claim to be earning $100 an hour single tabling the $1-$2 no limit tables. This guy claims that no limit is where the money is. I want to tell him to F off, but I am too kind. So I ask the group, is there any truth to the statement that low no limit is "easier" money than limit. What will make me a better player in the long run... a mixture of both?

Thanks all,
-Shaggy

[thesharpie]

Try both out and see which one you enjoy/win at most.

[JaBlue]

nobody is making 100$/hr one-tabling 1-2$ NL.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
hey everyone, I am relatively new to the poker scene and the experienced player that is somewhat mentoring me is a solid limit player (winning online $30-$60). He has urged me to get into poker, low limit hold'em to be more exact. I have done so, and feel I am learning at a reasonable rate. I have another friend that is one of those loud mouths that claim to be earning $100 an hour single tabling the $1-$2 no limit tables. This guy claims that no limit is where the money is. I want to tell him to F off, but I am too kind. So I ask the group, is there any truth to the statement that low no limit is "easier" money than limit. What will make me a better player in the long run... a mixture of both?

Thanks all,
-Shaggy

[/ QUOTE ]

Winrates are generally higher at no limit, but it's harder to multi-table. I'm not going to bother going to explain details in thread with a general question. Seriously, I hate this question. All games are profitable, the most profitable form is the one that fits your persona the best most the time. I just had a hard time putting in hours at no limit and I found it more stressfull which caused me to either quit while I was ahead because the stress was over, or quit when I was behind because I was stressed out.

I primarily play limit now because I find it much less stressfull, I have little difficulty in mutlitabling, and I can play without caring about the results of any hand for hours on end. Players need to find what game suits them best. If I don't see any good limit games and there are good NL games I have no trouble switching. Though I strongly discourage playing NL and Limit on seperate tables.

[ QUOTE ]
nobody is making 100$/hr one-tabling 1-2$ NL.

[/ QUOTE ] That much I know. My presumption is that NL is more volatile than limit. Is this a correct statement?
I know what it takes to earn money in gaming, grinding out small edges, with lots of volatility. I come from a serious blackjack background, where a $5000 bank is required to earn $25 an hour. I know what it takes to earn money with small edges. I want to get into something that will allow me to earn some money on a daily or weekly basis when i am not on one of my once a month blackjack trips. Since I am just getting started I want to get into the right game. So which is it, limit or NL.

I understand solid limit $2-$4 play will earn approx $8 per 100 hands... roughly $16 an hour 2-Tabling (all i am capable of doing so far). will NL earn a solid player more than that with the same or less volatility? this is assuming I were a solid player, which I will be some day, but I am not yet.

Thanks again for the help
-Shaggy

Great piece of advice, thank you.
-Shaggy

[hobbsmann]

In general it is said that NL has lower variance than limit, but as far as winrates are concerned I'm not sure what a solid figure is.

[pokergrader]

All of this is covered in the various FAQs on the site, but some quick answers.

NL normally has less variance than Limit because it is easier for a better player to use their advantage than in limit, where the betting structure allows much more luck. However, this does not mean NL is a better game for you or me, it is just a different game.

And 2BB/100 multitabling $2/$4 is not at all difficult to achieve if you study limit hold'em.

[SNOWBALL138]

2BB/100 is not the same as 2bb/hr because a lot of tables run at less than 100 hands/hr.

[stillbr]

[ QUOTE ]
That much I know. My presumption is that NL is more volatile than limit. Is this a correct statement?


I understand solid limit $2-$4 play will earn approx $8 per 100 hands... roughly $16 an hour 2-Tabling (all i am capable of doing so far). will NL earn a solid player more than that with the same or less volatility? this is assuming I were a solid player, which I will be some day, but I am not yet.

Thanks again for the help
-Shaggy

[/ QUOTE ]

1. You will experiance greater varience playing limit than NL.

2. You cant play 200 hands an hour ($8/100 hands| $16/hr) only 2 tabling unless you are playing very short handed.

[stillbr]

[ QUOTE ]
And 2BB/100 multitabling $2/$4 is not at all difficult to achieve if you study limit hold'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are WAYYYYYY over simplifying this. Only the very best players are making 2bb/100, even at 2-4. The vast majority of 2+2'ers that claim a 2bb/100 win rate are not truely there.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And 2BB/100 multitabling $2/$4 is not at all difficult to achieve if you study limit hold'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are WAYYYYYY over simplifying this. Only the very best players are making 2bb/100, even at 2-4. The vast majority of 2+2'ers that claim a 2bb/100 win rate are not truely there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh, 2bb at 2/4 isn't really that hard.

It seems tha general concensus is that the win rates are higher for no limit and the volatility is less. I checked out the FAQ over at the Small Stakes NL forum and found some useful info that seems to contradict the opinions above. Correct me if I am wrong, please. (Regurgitated from the FAQ) A good winrate for NL is 8BB/100, so at $.50 - $1.00 NL, a good winrate is $8 per 100 hands. The bankroll required for the game is roughly $2000. Comparing this to limit $2-$4, a good winrate is 2BB/100, so $8 per 100 hands. The bankroll required is (worst case) 500BB, so $900. This coupled with the ability to play multiple tables easier should say that for the same winrate, limit is less volatile. i.e. you need a smaller bank to earn the same amount in limit compared to NL. Am I on the right track here.
Thanks,
Shaggy

[olavfo]

[ QUOTE ]
Comparing this to limit $2-$4, a good winrate is 2BB/100, so $8 per 100 hands. The bankroll required is (worst case) 500BB, so $900.

[/ QUOTE ]
500BB = $2000.

[felix83]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems tha general concensus is that the win rates are higher for no limit and the volatility is less. I checked out the FAQ over at the Small Stakes NL forum and found some useful info that seems to contradict the opinions above. Correct me if I am wrong, please. (Regurgitated from the FAQ) A good winrate for NL is 8BB/100, so at $.50 - $1.00 NL, a good winrate is $8 per 100 hands. The bankroll required for the game is roughly $2000. Comparing this to limit $2-$4, a good winrate is 2BB/100, so $8 per 100 hands. The bankroll required is (worst case) 500BB, so $900. This coupled with the ability to play multiple tables easier should say that for the same winrate, limit is less volatile. i.e. you need a smaller bank to earn the same amount in limit compared to NL. Am I on the right track here.
Thanks,
Shaggy

[/ QUOTE ]

You need a larger bankroll, but my understanding is that if you're a very skilled player you won't go through the same long term swings at NL that you do at limit. But really, it's more up to your personality. I have some idea how to play NL, but limit suits me much better (limited risk per bet, much more mathematical at lower limits) so really you should just try both and see which you prefer.

[ QUOTE ]
500BB = $2000.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol. My day just started. So it would seem that $.50 - $1.00 NL is quite comparable to $2-$4 limit with the exception that limit is easier to multitable.

[donger]

To quote Howard Lederer: (http://tinyurl.com/98syg)


[ QUOTE ]

Even if your ultimate goal is to become an accomplished No-Limit Hold 'em player, I encourage you to at least play a lot of Limit Hold 'em. Too many No-Limit specialists get by with almost no post-flop skills. To get good at limit Hold 'em, you will be forced get more comfortable playing after the flop. Getting free cards on fourth street and making close value bets on fifth street are just two of the skills you'll be working on. And those skills are transferable. Developing these skills in limit Hold 'em will allow you to play your hands with all your options available. And your No-Limit results will improve dramatically.


[/ QUOTE ]