View Full Version : limit transition to no limit
i have been a limit player for about 2 years now, started 2/4 and currently at 15/30. most of my play is online and occasionally in casinos when i get a chance to go. when me and my buddies get together we play 1/2 to 2/5 NL.
being that i am so used to limit hold em, i have a hard time adjusting to NL. to me, play is so different. every street is so difficult to make a decision on. limit is just much more mechanical than NL. im sure this subject has been discussed here before, but i just want to see if anyone can offer any comments or advice as to how i can adjust to NL. thanks
NL is much easier than limit.
dogmeat
11-18-2005, 02:10 PM
You are asking too much - it's not like you are asking "how do I drive a car", you are asking "how do build a car from scratch."
Start reading the NL small stakes forum and ask single, pointed questions there - you will get answers. If you want to start reading books on NL, read the "books" forum and ask there what would be a good NL starters book.
Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif
dogmeat
11-18-2005, 02:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
NL is much easier than limit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Everybody has their own opinion - mine differs greatly from this.
Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif
stillbr
11-18-2005, 02:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
NL is much easier than limit.
[/ QUOTE ]
NL against bad players is much easier than Limit against bad players.
I agree with 'dogmeat' this is a complex question, and his suggestions for specific questions and book inquiries are sound.
Still as an expierenced Limit Player you should have a leg up (just watch where you aim) if your buddies don't play correctly.
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif I'll throw a suggestion in > Look in the <u>chapter on NoLimit / satellite</u> play in Lee Jones 3rd edition book called Winning Low Limit Holdem . The reason I suggest this is because I think the transition from Limit to NL requires first understanding the fundamental proper NL betting (amounts,at least the basics). Jones also throws in some other "neat" stuff in this chapter.
The main difference I see is that in Limit it's rarely the right move to fold a hand on the river just to save one bet. But, In NL, that one bet can be anything. In fact, it can be bigger than the pot itself.
IMO, the math guys tend to gravitate towards limit; the psychologists, to NL.
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, the math guys tend to gravitate towards limit; the psychologists, to NL.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're right. It's very easy to see at the table the guys that are used to limit by how they bet their hands. They don't understand, in limit you're trying to maximize small edges. In NL you're trapping and getting your opponent to make big mistakes. Concealing the strength of a hand is more important as the payoff is higher.
[ QUOTE ]
NL is much easier than limit.
[/ QUOTE ]
That, sir, is assinine. They are two similar games with different strategies. Some people excel at one while others excel at the other. Some people can play one very well, and suck at the other. To say one is easier than the other is way off the mark. I disagree with you, sir.
A high winrate at low limit to mid limit hold'em is generally agreed upon to be 3-4BB/100. The accepted ceiling we will say is 4BB/100. In NL, at the corresponding levels, 8-12PTBB/100 is a good winrate with really good players being able to hammer out 15-18PTBB/100 in the lowest games. We will use the ceiling to be 18PTBB/100 for NL.
I grab one million people at random. I have half of them play NL ring and half play limit ring. I believe I will have a much higher percentage of people beating the NL games for a "good" rate (~8PTBB/100) than you will have people beating limit for a "good" rate (~3BB/100).
Do people disagree with this?
doppler
11-19-2005, 06:51 AM
PTBB?
[ QUOTE ]
PTBB?
[/ QUOTE ]
A PTBB is 2x the big blind in a NL cash game. In limit, the big blind is 1/2 the big bet which is the unit used to describe the winrate for limit cash games.
Why do you say NL is easier than limit and then pull numbers from low stakes games?
Saying NL is easier than limit is a generalized statements that implies that NL is easier than limit under any circumstance.
Yes you will find alot of donks at low stakes no limit tables, and they will make biiiig mistakes which are +EV for an somewhat skilled player.
But that doesn't prove your statement to be true. That only tells us that playing NL against clueless opponents is likely to yield a bigger profit than limit. Well...playing limit against clueless opponents is easier than playing pot limit against tough opponents. Is pot limit more difficult than limit because of this?
And frankly, I tire of pissing contests between limit and no limit, they are pointless.
A well rounded and good poker player will beat games of different betting structures, even if it is NL, PL or FL. He will beat different house rules and he will beat different subsets of the game, be it it stud, omaha, tripledraw or whatnot.
You are making assumptions. I pull out the low to mid figures because this is where most of us fall. In high stake games, the games are generally a lot tougher no matter wether it is limit or NL. You will need to have mastered one of the two in order to play either game in higher stakes. Therefore, my argument is for the games that people will most likely be playing in.
doppler
11-19-2005, 10:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PTBB?
[/ QUOTE ]
A PTBB is 2x the big blind in a NL cash game. In limit, the big blind is 1/2 the big bet which is the unit used to describe the winrate for limit cash games.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah ok, thanks.
The mere fact that a knowledgeable player can make more money playing NL as opposed to limit does not mean NL is easier. It's because of the structure of the game. You cannot trap a man for all his chips in limit. In limit you do not get punished as much for your mistakes. Don't forget, in NL the suckouts usually cost you a lot more than in limit. Your argument has no validity.
dogmeat
11-19-2005, 11:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
A high winrate at low limit to mid limit hold'em is generally agreed upon to be 3-4BB/100. The accepted ceiling we will say is 4BB/100. In NL, at the corresponding levels, 8-12PTBB/100 is a good winrate with really good players being able to hammer out 15-18PTBB/100 in the lowest games. We will use the ceiling to be 18PTBB/100 for NL.
I grab one million people at random. I have half of them play NL ring and half play limit ring. I believe I will have a much higher percentage of people beating the NL games for a "good" rate (~8PTBB/100) than you will have people beating limit for a "good" rate (~3BB/100).
Do people disagree with this?
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you taking people that have never played poker before?
Have they played limit, NL before?
How many of these players are going to be winners - and why do you think more will be able to beat NL for 18TBB than beat the limit game for 4bb? What do you base this idea on?
I'm not trying to be a prick here - just give me some sound ideas that can be substantiated to support your theory.
Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif
[ QUOTE ]
The mere fact that a knowledgeable player can make more money playing NL as opposed to limit does not mean NL is easier. It's because of the structure of the game. You cannot trap a man for all his chips in limit. In limit you do not get punished as much for your mistakes. Don't forget, in NL the suckouts usually cost you a lot more than in limit. Your argument has no validity.
[/ QUOTE ]
All of your arguments against my point have poor logic behind the thinking. Using this phrase "In limit you do not get punished as much for your mistakes. Don't forget, in NL the suckouts usually cost you a lot more than in limit. Your argument has no validity," has no clue what they are talking about. I won't even bother arguing with you.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A high winrate at low limit to mid limit hold'em is generally agreed upon to be 3-4BB/100. The accepted ceiling we will say is 4BB/100. In NL, at the corresponding levels, 8-12PTBB/100 is a good winrate with really good players being able to hammer out 15-18PTBB/100 in the lowest games. We will use the ceiling to be 18PTBB/100 for NL.
I grab one million people at random. I have half of them play NL ring and half play limit ring. I believe I will have a much higher percentage of people beating the NL games for a "good" rate (~8PTBB/100) than you will have people beating limit for a "good" rate (~3BB/100).
Do people disagree with this?
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you taking people that have never played poker before?
Have they played limit, NL before?
How many of these players are going to be winners - and why do you think more will be able to beat NL for 18TBB than beat the limit game for 4bb? What do you base this idea on?
I'm not trying to be a prick here - just give me some sound ideas that can be substantiated to support your theory.
Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand Dogmeat, which is why you are the only one giving me any good reasoning structure or making it worthwhile to answer.
I'll elaborate when my buzz wears off, I'm smoking some really good kief right now.
Ok then, I'll assume the same logic then:
NL is easier than FL because a winning player will win more.
NL is harder than FL because a losing player will lose more.
PL is harder than FL because PL often attracts more serious players.
PL is easier than FL because you you will probably have a lower win/100 in FL vs bad players than in PL vs bad players.
7-card stud is easier than hold'em because a beginning player will make easier to spot mistakes.
Hold 'Em is easier than 7-card stud because when you are new, you're mistakes won't be so visible.
Ok,based on those statements I deduce that:
FL is easier than NL.
NL is easier than FL.
PL is easier than FL.
FL is easier than PL.
7-card stud is easier than hold'em.
Hold'em is easier than 7-card stud.
dogmeat
11-19-2005, 06:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
A high winrate at low limit to mid limit hold'em is generally agreed upon to be 3-4BB/100. The accepted ceiling we will say is 4BB/100. In NL, at the corresponding levels, 8-12PTBB/100 is a good winrate with really good players being able to hammer out 15-18PTBB/100 in the lowest games. We will use the ceiling to be 18PTBB/100 for NL.
I grab one million people at random. I have half of them play NL ring and half play limit ring. I believe I will have a much higher percentage of people beating the NL games for a "good" rate (~8PTBB/100) than you will have people beating limit for a "good" rate (~3BB/100).
Do people disagree with this?
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is my argument for the 1 million people trial.
I assume they have never played before, but they get a sheet of paper that lists the winning hand order, and the general idea about hold'em.
Half go to a $1/$2 limit game where the blinds are .50 and $1. Half go to a $100 NL game where the blinds are .50 and $1. Each has just the one buy-in to play with.
After an hour, how many of each group have busted out? I would guess the number is higher in NL.
After 10 hours, how many have busted out? Again, I still see the NL leading the way in broke players.
If we give them each 10 buy-ins ($1000), how many can make anything after 100 hours? If 10% are able to keep from busting out, out of those players, how many are NL, and of the winners, how much did the NL and the limit players average? At this point, WTFknows - I certainly don't.
If after a year of full-time play there were 20,000 that had avoided going broke, what would the mix be. If it was 50/50 then would we say the games were both equally tough? If they were 50/50 but the NL players averaged more per hour, would we say NL was easier?
Anybody?
Now that I've wasted all this time on this topic, the answer is neither - each game appeals to different types of players, and probably it is impossible to state that one is easier or harder for anybody other than ourselves. However, with a small, limited bankroll, I believe new players will go broke at a higher (and faster) rate in NL than limit.
Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif
What are you considering 1 buy-in for a limit game? Also, NL100 is a bigger game than 1/2 limit, but I guess that point is moot anyway as you are clearly just saying games of equal stake.
scott8
11-19-2005, 08:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The main difference I see is that in Limit it's rarely the right move to fold a hand on the river just to save one bet.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong.
Arnfinn Madsen
11-19-2005, 08:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main difference I see is that in Limit it's rarely the right move to fold a hand on the river just to save one bet.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's right /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. It depends on the opposition. In very aggressive limit games it is rarely right to fold to one bet.
scott8
11-19-2005, 08:29 PM
Because he clarified that he was talking about aggressive games? Or specified opposition?
Think before you post.
Arnfinn Madsen
11-19-2005, 08:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Because he clarified that he was talking about aggressive games? Or specified opposition?
Think before you post.
[/ QUOTE ]
I put a smiley /images/graemlins/frown.gif. I just find all this no-limit/limit, yes it is/no it isn't discussions a bit funny.
umdpoker
11-19-2005, 10:18 PM
i am assuming that you are playing against average to bad players. i think that nl is easier to start making decent money at. limit takes a lot more faith that you are doing the right thing every time you make a decision, because the losing streaks can be much longer.
in nl, it is easier to control the number of players that are in the pot, and who is in the pot. however, there are also an infinite number of ways to play a hand in nl, many of which can be correct. usually in limit, only 1 or 2 plays are correct. they are both tough to become great at, but i think nl is easier to become a winning player at the low levels. i didn't start playing nl til i had already played limit for a year, so that might have helped me get decent at nl fairly quckly. i definitely believe that you can make more in nl with the same bankroll, which is why i prefer to play nl.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.