Limit VS No-Limit, which requires more skill, A POLL!

[Stew]

OK, I've started another controversy over in the zoo. The question is this: Which tournament requires more Skill to compete and do well in a tournament setting? Limit Hold 'Em or No-Limit Hold 'Em?

Please vote and if you would like to add editorial comments, please do so!

TIA

[daryn]

why is there no choice for neither? maybe they are both just poker tournaments and are equally challenging. it's like saying, what's easier, an omaha hi/lo tourney or a stud 8 tourney...

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
why is there no choice for neither? maybe they are both just poker tournaments and are equally challenging. it's like saying, what's easier, an omaha hi/lo tourney or a stud 8 tourney...

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say which was more challenging, the question is, "which one requires more skill to be successful".

So, pick one, lol.

[CrisBrown]

This one's easy.

Limit Hold'em, by far and away, requires more limit hold'em skills.

No-Limit Hold'em, by far and away, requires more no-limit hold'em skills.

Cris

[daryn]

perfect answer

[Nottom]

Can I vote for pot-limit?

[daryn]

what if they both require the same amount of skill ? there still should be a "neither" choice.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I think the subtleties of playing tournament NL are much greater than limit tourneys, where solid play pretty much gets the cash, and there are few really big decisions to make. You really need to understand a lot about being all-in, which doesn't happen much in limit tourneys. Also, you face more tough decisions in no limit. However, expert players certainly have a much bigger advantage at no limit.

al

[t_perkin]

yes it depends what you mean by "more skillful".
The stochastic element of each game is exactly equal. ( i think..)
Do you mean which game "rewards" the skillful player the most?
Or maybe you mean, which game has the lowest variance? (i.e. when you start a tournament in NL are you more or less likely to see the best players finishing at the top every time?)

hehe, we are then back to my previous thread of how well a tournament rewards the best players - but I will steer clear of that! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I ticked the NL box btw. but that is because that is what i play, i don't expect many people here will admit that they prefer a less skillful game /images/graemlins/smile.gif
I would argue that this is the case because there are more decisions to be made. Both games offer you the option of fold call or raise at every opportunity. NL however has one extra variable under your control. A slightly superficial argument I know, but then I am once more hungover.
(I am addicted to niether gambling nor alcohol - I just have a fondness for both!)

just some thoughts.

Tim

[Rushmore]

I voted for limit, but this only applies when there's enough play built into the structure. If the levels are too short, or they go up too fast, I change my vote to no-limit, almost regardless of the structure.

[Schneids]

I would vote pot limit over them both if given that choice, with NL a close second.

Simply due to being able to bet people off draws/make them pay for them, without the stupid (yet oftentimes effective, admittedly) tactic of frequently going all in (especially PF).