NL v. limit

[benkahuna]

I've started playing a lot of limit lately and I've decided something once and for all.

NL is harder. Despite playing much more NL than limit, I find the decision-making in NL consistently trickier, particularly if you have a stack of any consequence. More options and all in to simplify decisions isn't often one of them.
I think it is more difficult to make money in limit consistently though due to the greater luck factor in the game in the short run working with the same bankroll as in NL.

[DRKEVDC]

I have always liked limit better than NL as I feel that Limit is a game of math more than NL. Not being able to push people off of hands/having yourself pushed off a hand make these games very very different from each other.

With that being said I believe it is much easier to make money at limit vs NL if you understand how to play both of them.

This is very funny as I was just having this discussion on a non-poker basketball board - but the question is "which is more profitable?"

I would argue that for most players, limit is actually more profitable because it is easier to find the edges and exploit them - in no limit, you have to be extremely skilled and be able to read really well if you want to succeed.

So what do you all think? Which is more profitable for the average player? limit or no limit?

[ QUOTE ]

So what do you all think? Which is more profitable for the average player? limit or no limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the average *winning* player EV/Variance is generally going to be better in no limit play. For the losing player, neither is profitable.

[Buccaneer]

I think that you have me confused.

You state that NL is a more difficult game, then you say it is harder for you to win MONEY at limit. What yard stick are you using to measure the difficulty of NL. Is it winning money, or as you suggest the need of luck?

I think that the general consensus is that limit is the more difficult game but that NL can punish mistakes very badly. I play mostly limit and some NL, both of which I suck at, but I spend a lot of study on limit so limit seems easier for me.

[ QUOTE ]

I think that the general consensus is that limit is the more difficult game but that NL can punish mistakes very badly. I play mostly limit and some NL, both of which I suck at, but I spend a lot of study on limit so limit seems easier for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The joy of poker: Games that it's easier to burn people in, are also games that it's easier to get burned at.

[thomastem]

Even though this has been discussed several times I don't get bored with the limit vs NL debate.

Really the easier of the 2 depends on the person and whether they excel and enjoy Math or Reading skills more. Sort of like asking whether science or math is the more difficult subject.

So I believe the answer is different for everyone.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though this has been discussed several times I don't get bored with the limit vs NL debate.

Really the easier of the 2 depends on the person and whether they excel and enjoy Math or Reading skills more. Sort of like asking whether science or math is the more difficult subject.

So I believe the answer is different for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you can still enjoy the topic. I know it's a common one, but since I formed a strong opinion I felt like throwing it out there. I know Ciaffone and Malmuth/Sklansky have been arguing their sides for a many years.

While I believe I can make more money in no limit (primarily because I punish mathematical mistakes that others make more than in limit), I also believe it to be a more difficult game. It's much more stressful and I find I need to think longer and more carefully in order to make the best decisions.

Partly, I think it's a function of the low limits I play. I do fine at 2-2 and 2-3 no limit and at 6-12 limit, but I find no limit to be more profitable. I can play 6-12 limit on auto-pilot even against out there players. Whereas I have to have it pretty well together to play no limit. I'm sure things get more interesting at higher limits, but even then it seems that limit is the easier game.

For a while, I thought limit was harder, but that's until I learned to adjust to the nature of the game rather than trying to play it the way I played no limit at the time.

Since I find most players aren't that good at these limits, I think limit is a better choice for them as they'll usually lose their money more slowly. I choose no limit when it's available, but might start playing limit if I feel NL will be more difficult.

Consistent with what you say, I find the math very easy which may be why limit seems easy. Based on the structure of the games, I get the feeling that limit is easier regardless of limit and opponents. I don't get that many physical reads, but I usually have some idea what people have. Not sure if you consider that a read.

I'm not sure how well I expressed the thought before, but I think while the decisions are more difficult in NL and that overall it's a more difficult game, I think it's harder to make money in limit. You need more consistency and you also need more luck. Once you get beyond the short term, the luck obviously becomes a less significant factor. In NL, the high reward of a good decision compensates for its difficulty.

I say all this after having maybe 1000x as many playing hours/table in limit as opposed to no limit.

It might also have something to do with the fact that almost every book I've read focused on limit and not no limit.

[BlackRain]

I started with NL. I took a long hiatus to limit. And now I am back at NL. I think there is good money to be made in both. However, I keep my sanity better in NL.

I have to put my vote in to the NL box, I love poker so I will play just about any game wether its limit or no limit. But I get more pissed and just don't enjoy playing as much when its limit. I know suckouts are a part of the game but some times I can't take it (and if you come back and say get over it happens, you think for a second becuase we all do it)

[DRKEVDC]

No one can argue that suckouts don't happen in both games. However, a suckout in limit will not cost you your whole stack, whereas in NL you can be 98% to win and watch your stack disappear in an instant.

[thomastem]

[ QUOTE ]
No one can argue that suckouts don't happen in both games. However, a suckout in limit will not cost you your whole stack, whereas in NL you can be 98% to win and watch your stack disappear in an instant.

[/ QUOTE ]

That only happens %2 of the time in NL though. Can you see why?

[FrankStallone]

In NL there are MANY more ways to outplay weaker players. weaker players catch on and go play limit where it's not as noticable that they are being outplayed so badly. IMO

[mike4bmp]

[ QUOTE ]
I also believe it to be a more difficult game. It's much more stressful and I find I need to think longer and more carefully in order to make the best decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with some of what you are saying....I think (especially) nowadays NL is a little trickier due to all the people that are new to poker that only know how to play by watching the WSOP and WPT online...eveyone thinks they're a fricken Gus Hansen...they have no idea of the differences between a NL tournament and NL cash games....
On the flip side...if you are playing with people who are experienced then it becomes a mental marathon...exhausting!

Limit...is harder in other ways...at times it seems like an exercise in endurance, emotional stability and patiences (sometimes even more so than NL)....I don't really like to compare the two...just two totally different games that should be treated as such. apples and oranges? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
....I don't really like to compare the two...just two totally different games that should be treated as such. apples and oranges?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on, I'm glad someone said it. Which is harder, Draw or Stud? It's the same argument but nonetheless an interesting one. As far as the 'Limit involves more luck' argument what the hell are you trying to say? Luck does not exist. Short term swings are a function of statistics not acts of God and certainly not luck. Both forms of HE invlove significant swings, but it does not mean one has to be 'more lucky' to win at either form.

It is a fact that NL is harder than Limit yet most people online play NL????????????????????????????????????????

Can't figure that one out.

I personally find limit more difficult, because the bad beats make it more emotionally challenging. Even using the methods described in SSHE, I find it very difficult to protect my hand when playing 0.5/1 or 1/2. Most people think nothing of calling two bets cold with 2-3 outs. When you have 3-4 people all drawing against your current best hand, frequently it ends up second best by the river.

By constrast, in NL I can punish poor players with devastating efficiency. I can acutally use one of the poker weapons you almost forget about when playing SSHE, the bluff.

[leehrat]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally find limit more difficult, because the bad beats make it more emotionally challenging. Even using the methods described in SSHE, I find it very difficult to protect my hand when playing 0.5/1 or 1/2. Most people think nothing of calling two bets cold with 2-3 outs. When you have 3-4 people all drawing against your current best hand, frequently it ends up second best by the river.

By constrast, in NL I can punish poor players with devastating efficiency. I can acutally use one of the poker weapons you almost forget about when playing SSHE, the bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

couldn't have said it any better myself. NL is the best way to preserve your sanity at low limits and build your roll.

[stu-unger]

i personally luv pokah. i luv all pokah games in limit and no limit. the thing about comparing them is that most of us are biased. i personally think nl is easier and limit is more fun. could that be because ive played over 100,000 hands of nl and play limit for fun...maybe.

i dont think there is a proper scale to compare the 2. they are both complex games that no one has or will ever master. my skill set is more beneficial in nl, yours may be limit or stud or whatever.

You are right the NL is trickier than Limit, but is a lot more profitable if you can learn how to read hands and play the player. This is good for limit, but it seems that you are wasting knowledge by just gaining one more bet when you know exactly what your opponent holds. My best attribute is figuring out a player's hand and then either getting them to call or fold. There is no way to do this in limit.

[Dave Mac]

it is hard to be wrong as much as you are.
dave

[ QUOTE ]
couldn't have said it any better myself. NL is the best way to preserve your sanity at low limits and build your roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you experienced at limit? Or did you start playing limit after you first learned NL? I see a LOT of people who have begun poker since it started on TV get frustrated quickly when they play limit poker of any kind. This does not mean NL is more profitable it just means they may not know how to play limit. A Starting hand of AA is not as strong in limit holdem as it is in NL yet almost everyone assumes it is. Then when the blind or a clown catched a second pair on the river to crack their aces, they get disgusted and whine about it. In my opinion, you CANNOT underestimate how DIFFERENT LIMIT is from NL!!!! They look similar and the actions are similar so it is easy to see how inexperienced players try to play them the same way.

If you try to play a NL game at limit you will lose period. Limit poker is a grind..2BB/100 hands is considered good. You have to play thousands and thousands of hands due to variance to see if you are a winner or loser.

I dont know which is more profitable but it is a funciton of your skills vs the rest of the people at the table.

[NateDog]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right the NL is trickier than Limit, but is a lot more profitable if you can learn how to read hands and play the player. This is good for limit, but it seems that you are wasting knowledge by just gaining one more bet when you know exactly what your opponent holds. My best attribute is figuring out a player's hand and then either getting them to call or fold. There is no way to do this in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reasoning is terribly flawed.

I would say in online play limit is far more profitable and easier to play. In a casino though I feel it is more profitable to play no limit. I find there to be a difference in the games played in the 2 different venues. but again it comes down to I think what the player is better at themselves and the game selection.

[papilindo]

Perhaps an appropriate analogy is the following:

You are given the task of "taking out" an adversary of equal strength, size etc., in a cage match without the benefit of any weapons for either of you...

Or, you are given the option where each of you will have a deadly weapon, say knives...

Choosing no weapons will in all likelihood be a more time consuming and arduous task. Choosing knives however, while potentialy allowing you to end the matter more quickly (easily), brings an extra element of difficulty in that if not used with sufficient expertise, could rapidly result in catastrophe due to even a minor miscalculation which otherwise might been overcome had no such weapons been involved.

Is LHE more difficult (bludgeoning someone over an extended period of time)...yes, in some respects.
Is NLHE more difficult (escalating the danger level)...yes, in some respects.

I personally prefer LHE as I am a more patient player who prefers to exploit small edges over a period of time as opposed to the potential for the "quick kill". Part of this is due in part, I must admit, to my reticence for being involved in dangerous situations, which obviously the NLHE player often finds himself in, albeit voluntarily in many cases.

Just my .02...

[rwanger]

Can't say which is easier or harder...but...

NO-LIMIT is WAAAY more profitable if you know what you are doing.

You can make so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit. Example: yesterday I bet 3x the pot with quads. My opponent called with top full. I made 50BB's (big bets) on the river alone. That's close to 2500 hands of profit at limit (2BB/100).

There are people out there making in the range of 10BB/100 in no-limit. Due to the restricted betting in limit poker, this is just not possible.

[Salva135]

[ QUOTE ]
In NL there are MANY more ways to outplay weaker players. weaker players catch on and go play limit where it's not as noticable that they are being outplayed so badly. IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! Someone has finally hit on why limit can be so incredibly profitable.

Clearly NL is all the vogue today, but the fact is that a good limit player will crush a bad limit player far more easily than a good NL player will crush a bad NL player. Without the ability to take down a huge pot due to a lucky suckout, the poor limit player will ONLY win by pushing the correct edges, of which he will have limit against a superior opponent.

[Salva135]

That should read, "of which he will have little against a superior opponent."

The real issue here is that it's sexy and exciting to be good at reading an opponent's hand, making fancy players and getting him to call with a worse hand or lay down a better hand. It is not sexy and exciting to have a better understanding of probability than your opponents and to crush them over time by repeatedly pushing edges. Everyone who watches poker on TV and just gets started wants to be the sexy hand-reader, because guys like Moneymaker say they don't read poker books, they just use pure guts and instinct.

Missing from this discussion is the point that in NL, a bad player can reduce a better player's edge on later streets by pushing all-in, whereas in limit games one has to learn how to develop a solid post-flop game, which I think a lot of inexperienced players who watch on TV are inherently uncomfortable with.

No one has also pointed out the fact that at high limits, limit HE is a vastly different game than it is at the lower limits. Sure, that decision to call on the river is only one BB, but when that BB is equal to $200, the decision suddenly carries a lot more weight. At these and higher limits, Limit HE is very much about hand reading and outplaying your opponents. Think about it -- if NL were the true test of a player's ability, why are all of the Big Game players all playing limit??

[ QUOTE ]
Can't say which is easier or harder...but...

NO-LIMIT is WAAAY more profitable if you know what you are doing.

You can make so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit. Example: yesterday I bet 3x the pot with quads. My opponent called with top full. I made 50BB's (big bets) on the river alone. That's close to 2500 hands of profit at limit (2BB/100).

There are people out there making in the range of 10BB/100 in no-limit. Due to the restricted betting in limit poker, this is just not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a worthless example because, no matter how skilled you are, there is just as good a chance that you will one day be on the losing side of that equation.

I don't think either game is easier or harder. I think for an expert player, NL is a more potentially profitable game because they can extract the most possible money off of weaker players. For anyone else, I think its a toss-up - in NL, you will suffer some horrible beats that can kill you - and in limit, you do not have the same potential for big victories.

The way I look at it is that in limit, you are at the mercy of the odds. If the pot is 10BB and you hold top pair, there is no way that you can put someone in a situation where it is not correct to call with a draw to an outside straight or a flush.

In NL, your goal is to correctly DICTATE the odds to suit your situation. So if you hold top pair and you think your opponent is on a flush draw, you can bet to make it incorrect for them to play their draw. Similarly, if you have a full house, you can bet so that it is correct for them to play their draw.

Personally, I think that a lot of people here are simply making up reasons why they think NL is better when, if they were being honest, the truth is that they like it more because they have the opportunity to be more aggressive and to push people around - its a power thing.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
1. It is not sexy and exciting to have a better understanding of probability than your opponents and to crush them over time by repeatedly pushing edges.

2. Missing from this discussion is the point that in NL, a bad player can reduce a better player's edge on later streets by pushing all-in, whereas in limit games one has to learn how to develop a solid post-flop game, which I think a lot of inexperienced players who watch on TV are inherently uncomfortable with.

3. Sure, that decision to call on the river is only one BB, but when that BB is equal to $200, the decision suddenly carries a lot more weight.

4. Think about it -- if NL were the true test of a player's ability, why are all of the Big Game players all playing limit??

[/ QUOTE ]

1. How do you think most NL pros make their living? Sexy and exciting has nothing to do with it. Pushing edges is how you win. Also, FWIW understanding how to bluff or force a bad call in NL is pushing an edge.

2. Any good NL player will tell you the majority of his profit comes from post flop play. It is true that a bad player can go all in on later streets, but a good player will know to adjust and will end up with the bad player's stack eventually by utilizing hand range and pot odds calculations.

3. High limit games do play differently, but that $200 BB is still just one BB. If the BB being worth $200 as opposed to $20 makes the decision carry more weight, you aren't thinking about the game properly.

4. I'm assuming most of the players in that group would agree that some sort of deep stack HU match would be the best way to test each players ability. Point being, they aren't necessarily playing the game that is the true test of a player's ability. As far as I know, they play mixed games, with NL being one of the games.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that a lot of people here are simply making up reasons why they think NL is better when, if they were being honest, the truth is that they like it more because they have the opportunity to be more aggressive and to push people around - its a power thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think for many NL players its not a power thing. There are simply more tools in the shed for a NL player when compared to limit due to non-restrictive betting, leading to larger winrates and a larger gulf in skill between good and bad players.

I will preface this by saying, I do not consider myself a limit plaeyer. I have played limit, but I primarily pay NL. I think the the argument, which is more difficult, is a very difficult question to answer. You can profit at both, it's just done differently. You have idiots playing both games that have no idea what they are doing, and those are the idiots you profit from. Sometimes there are tables where you identify a player that might be as good as you, if not better. You try to avoid confrontation with that guy, unless it's cheap. You do both in both games.
Now, you can make more money off of a guy that overvalues his hand in NL, than in limit, for example, those dummies that play any ace. When they hit their ace and think it's good, and you have a better kicker, he might pay you off. The trick is, knowing how much he's willing to pay. If he tries to go all in and you call with AK, you'll take his stack. In limit, you can make the same read, but you're restricted to how much you can get out of him at that particular time, you can only raise so much. It takes away the decision you make as to how much to bet to bring him along without betting him out of the pot, or, if you can induce a bluff, what size bet will get him to do that so you can break him, you just can't break a guy in one hand in limit, unless he's already short-stacked and hasn't reloaded. Then again, you get those idiots in NL who put half their stack in pre-flop heads up with something like suited connectors or any two cards (they were suited after all) and suck out when you raised with a monster. You have to know your opponent and know how he plays to avoid being sucked out on like that. I prefer NL because, for me, it provides me a better opportunity to exploit bad players and take advantage of it to the fullest.

[UBPLayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't say which is easier or harder...but...

NO-LIMIT is WAAAY more profitable if you know what you are doing.

You can make so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit. Example: yesterday I bet 3x the pot with quads. My opponent called with top full. I made 50BB's (big bets) on the river alone. That's close to 2500 hands of profit at limit (2BB/100).

There are people out there making in the range of 10BB/100 in no-limit. Due to the restricted betting in limit poker, this is just not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Mistake.

You are equating a BB in limit to a BB in NL...Big Mistake. In your words playing 4/8 limit is the same as playing NL with 2/4 Blinds? That is silly. You need to have a MUCH larger bankroll to play 2/4 NL than 4/8 Limit. You cannot equate the two the way you do. Winning 2BB/100 in limit is probably more like winning 15 or 20BB/100 in NL based on bankroll size.

[eisanm]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to know your opponent and know how he plays to avoid being sucked out on like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is one of the best things that can happen. You get someone all in with 76s, you having KK, and you are actually complaining, because maybe once in 10 hands, you'll get sucked out?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.

However, to measure profitability isn't only about BB/100. I also think it doesn't matter how much it is relative to your bankroll size.

Think of it in terms of $ / hr. That's the only thing that actually counts, and here multitabling comes in.
Playing several tables will guarantee you a lower BB/100 but increase your hourly rate unless you're a loser, since the multiple tables more than compensate for your lower win rate per hands played.

I've heard from better players and I know a few limit players who play up to 10 tables simultaneously.

They don't play no-limit, but they do believe that a good NL player could play at most 4 or 5 tables, because of the better information and concentration it needs to play NL.

Therefor, limit could potentially be more profitable because you can play more tables.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe this is one of the best things that can happen. You get someone all in with 76s, you having KK, and you are actually complaining, because maybe once in 10 hands, you'll get sucked out?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you did misunderstand me, but it's my fault; I did not express that clearly. What I meant was, it's very important to know the range of hands your opponent in a pot plays and how he plays them. It's a good thing to know that an idiot would invest half his stack pre-flop with a hand that needs a lot of help to defeat you, especially if you're showing strength. It's just frustrating as hell, because when you do get a monster like pocket kings, you hate losing with them to a hand that shouldn't have been there based on the price you they were getting. I probably sound hypocritical, that I'm saying you want guys making those kinda of mistakes, but it can put you on tilt easier when they do suck out. When you win those hands you just think, "ha, idiot, thanks for the money, ATM." But when you lose, you lose a lot more money than in limit and it really pisses you off. I still think I failed to express what I'm trying to say. The point is, you want guys like that around, you just don't want them getting lucky against YOU.

If the NL buy-in is 100 *big blinds*, and you need 20 buy-ins for a bankroll for NL, and if you need only 300 BBs (2x big blind) for a limit bankroll, then you can play with the big blind 3.3x higher in limit. So each BB/100 in limit could be equivalent to 3.3PTBB/100 in NL. Sounds roughly equivalent in earn. Good limit players are 2-3BB/100, while good NL players might be 6-10 PTBB/100.

Furthermore, I think that limit encourages you to stay on top of your game. You can't wait for monsters and trap opponents for their stacks in limit -- you need to exploit every edge all the time to make a good win rate. This is true in NL as well, but in my experience it is easier to get lazy in NL.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]

Big Mistake.

You are equating a BB in limit to a BB in NL...Big Mistake. In your words playing 4/8 limit is the same as playing NL with 2/4 Blinds? That is silly. You need to have a MUCH larger bankroll to play 2/4 NL than 4/8 Limit. You cannot equate the two the way you do. Winning 2BB/100 in limit is probably more like winning 15 or 20BB/100 in NL based on bankroll size.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if im misunderstanding your point. The way i read it, you are trying to say that you should compare winrates of $25 NL ($2.5/100 at 10 BB/100, blinds of .10/.25) to .5/1 Limit ($2.5/100, at 2.5 BB/100, blinds of .25/.50). If so, this is wrong. You should be comparing similar blind structures because it is the blinds that determine the number of hands you get for your $$$. If you never play a hand $25 NL costs the same amount to play as .25/.50 Limit, and your ROI for the blinds is WAY higher in NL.

I played Limit for a year and just started playing NL seriously. I find against terrible small stakes players NL is way easier. Because the players at these levels makes such big mistakes, you can just sit around and wait for good hands and have them pay you off. Its not as interesting as Limit at these levels but there is way more money.

[ QUOTE ]
You can make so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also lose so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit.

[Post-Oak]

I think that it would be a lot a lot harder to design a highly competent bot which plays full ring NL, than a bot which plays limit. NL is a far more complex game.

NL sometimes requires daring/courage, where as limit requires more mental toughness as far as absorbing bad beats is concerned.

I'm really not sure which is "easier" for humans. I just think NL is more complex.

[Salva135]

[ QUOTE ]


I think for many NL players its not a power thing. There are simply more tools in the shed for a NL player when compared to limit due to non-restrictive betting, leading to larger winrates and a larger gulf in skill between good and bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO the gulf in skill between good and bad players is WAY larger in limit. In the long run, a poor limit player is in far more trouble against a superior limit player than a poor NL player is against a poor NL player. In limit, the poorer player has no way to reduce the edge the superior player has in post-flop play, which he can eliminate in NL simply by going all-in. In the end, he will be crushed.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think for many NL players its not a power thing. There are simply more tools in the shed for a NL player when compared to limit due to non-restrictive betting, leading to larger winrates and a larger gulf in skill between good and bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO the gulf in skill between good and bad players is WAY larger in limit. In the long run, a poor limit player is in far more trouble against a superior limit player than a poor NL player is against a poor NL player. In limit, the poorer player has no way to reduce the edge the superior player has in post-flop play, which he can eliminate in NL simply by going all-in. In the end, he will be crushed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all dependent on how long of a time period we are talking. If you are talking a one time HU match, then you probably are correct, provided the noob NL player was smart enough to realize the strategy you bring up, which is debatable since he is supposedly a poor player. Even so, a good NL could adjust and still maintain a large edge. If it were a series of matches, or some other scenario that is more drawn out, the edge of the NL player is much larger than that of the limit player over weaker competition. There is really no question that the BB/100 of the NL player would be higher.

Personally I find Limit much more difficult to play. When I started playing I started with limit and then moved on to NL. Ive gone back a few times and find myself completely off my game. The way you read people is completely different and I havent been able to get myself back into that mentality.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]

IMO the gulf in skill between good and bad players is WAY larger in limit. In the long run, a poor limit player is in far more trouble against a superior limit player than a poor NL player is against a poor NL player. In limit, the poorer player has no way to reduce the edge the superior player has in post-flop play, which he can eliminate in NL simply by going all-in. In the end, he will be crushed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Going all in doesnt reduce someones edge. All it does is negate any positional advantage your opponent has. Bad players by definition will go all-in at bad times where they are way behind. If anything going all-in for a bad player increases the good players edge. Play the $25 buy-in, you see a lot of really donkish stuff.

There are moves you can make in NL that you can't make in limit like pricing your opponent out of the hand by making a bet or raise thet ruins his odds. For example, in limit it's often to call a river bet based on pot odds, in NL you can bet so large that the player can't call based on odds. I'm sure there are plays in limit that don't apply to NL, I don't play enough limit to know. I wouldn't mind if some of you guys care to tell me about them since you guys play more limit than I do.
I think the answer to the question, which is harder, can also be dependent on the person. Not everyone can play both, some people play one better than the other because it is a better fit for them.

[rwanger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can make so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also lose so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are losing huge pots as often as you are winning huge pots, then you definately have some leaks in your nl game.

You could debate this until the end of time. If you are willing to grind it out in order to slowly - but steadily - build your role I think limit is a much more probitable game. In no-limit, a single mistake can destroy a bankroll you just worked for the past 8 hours building up. That is why all the big money players - with a few exceptions - stick to playing limit in cash games. That is why until the big poker wave hit, you rarely saw people playing no-limt cash games. Obviously, if you are far more skilled than your opponent, no-limit is likey the better game because your hourly rate will likely be much larger. So, as is the answer with every poker question, "It all depends."

I play them both about 50/50, but I play NL at very low buy-ins and FL at middle stakes, so my play at NL won't cripple my bankroll and at the FL I don't really need to worry to get much punished.

If it were other way around I would stress my ass off at the NL and would be totally bored at the FL.

Which is more profitable? Depends on the person and his luck.

[ QUOTE ]
That is why all the big money players - with a few exceptions - stick to playing limit in cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong, so don't misinterpret this post. From my understanding, they do occasionally include No Limit Hold 'em in The Big Game, especially when the raise the stakes. Also, Doyle Brunson has been playing NL as long as he's been playing. In his book, Barry Greenstein refers to playing NL cash games years ago, so, I don't think it's as uncommon as many would make it seem, just that limit has always been much more popular until recently, but it seems that there has always been a NL game and, now, there always will be.

[In Paradise]

[ QUOTE ]

Think about it -- if NL were the true test of a player's ability, why are all of the Big Game players all playing limit??

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, 3 of the 7 or 8 games they play in the Big Game are not fixed limit.