Limit vs. No limit SNGs on Party...(a bit long)

[blackaces13]

I don't play a lot of SNGs but I think I may start at the $10+1 level on Party Poker. My dilemna is that I know that good players have much more of an advantage over worse players in NL, yet I am a much better limit player IMO and I'm more comfortable playing limit. Basically this is because I like being able to call a single bet on the river with a set after the flush card hits the river than having to deal with an all-in or monsterous pot sized bet. Also, figuring implied odds in NL is very difficult and player dependant yet in limit I am very comfortable with my ability to calculate basic odds.

I notice most on this forum prefer the NL variety and my guess is this is because luck is probably more of a short term factor in limit play. Also, you can really punish loose calling stations in NL and it only takes 1 good hand, whereas its much more difficult to cripple these types in 1 hand of limit and its often impossible to extract a huge sum.

I think I'm better than the avg 10+1 Party SNG player in either style but I tend to prefer limit and I have noticed that the players in the limit SNGs are just as bad as the NL players yet both of these groups feature VERY bad players. So, am I giving up too much of an edge or short term variance by playing limit? There's nothing better than having the nut flush and "knowing" you can get 1 or even a few players to call your all in early in an NL SNG and clearly these situations never happen in limit.

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

[jedi]

I play mostly limit ring games, but almost exclusively NL in tournaments. For some reason, it suits my style. In tournaments, I probably play too tight early, and in a limit game, that hurts me as the blinds move up fast. In NL, I can double up early and protect my chips until the end. I just think NL gives me more weapons to use. Sometimes I'll be bluffed out with an all-in bet, sometimes I'll throw away the best hand. That's NL for you.

Play where you're comfortable. When I started, I did play limit games. I moved to NL to get more comfortable playing in that environment and have been doing decently since then.

[blackaces13]

[Sheriff Fatman]

I play both - my ROI is currently higher on limit than NL games with about 150 of each at the 30+3 level.

Both can be a bit of a crapshoot at times - try both out and play whichever you are more comfortable with.

Sheriff

[blackaces13]

Thanks for the info SF.

[C M Burns]

This kind of brings up something i was just thinking so i will say it here. I play sng's off an on and have been getting more into them latley. pretty much nl, but then it occured to me that the way these things play you are usually risking all your chips in nl when you get a hand. So lets say you often get allin as a 2-1 favorite, well you will win 2/3 but bust out 1/3. now in limit in the same situation, since you will often get called, 2/3 you will win a bunch of chips, but that 1/3 you may be hurt but not out. So the point/question is that even though you may win less chips when you win the fact that you are still alive may add alot of equity in limit.

Whether this works in practice I don't know, but perhaps someone with some results/experience has some input.

[Don_Lapre]

I prefer the NL limit much more to the limit. I think the limit games are more of a crap shoot with the way the blinds increase so fast. And as Jedi stated you can often easily double up, protect your chips, and have more "weapons" as well. It seems the $10 tournaments are full of overagressive goofballs happy to bet everything on a draw. Although you have to be willing to go all in when you have the edge knowing you might get knocked out.

DonLapre

[Bozeman]

While 50% ROI is possible for NL at low-medium buyins, I would be surprised if better than 30% is possible for limit. The problem is not variance per se, but lower win rates (~.5 big blinds/round) make finishing high uncertain even when you get lucky. At the low levels at NL, I can make ~1-2 big blinds/round.

Though I have an astronomical rate in my tiny sample of limit tourneys (4/4 in the money, all played by accident /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

Still, 25-30% ROI is not a bad return, so if you are not a good NL player, you may do better with limit,
Craig

[blackaces13]

[Sheriff Fatman]

I haven't decided yet - all I know so far is that Limit currently has a higer win rate and ROI.

However, I find I do better when I don't mix the two up as there are some subtle differences in strategy needed. Concentrate on one format at a time for better results.

For example, short stack play is one big difference - its much harder to defend a weak stack playing limit as you can't dump all-in to scare off callers. Small and medium pocket pairs are therefore much less valuable holdings.

As I said earlier, give both a go for a reasonable sample size (say initially 50) and see which suits you better. I asked a similar question on here a while ago but not many people play enough limit games to have particularly strong opinions.

Sheriff

[icepoker]

At the moment I prefer limit. I've played both but since I'm a limit player it comes more natural to me. These games are pretty easy to beat at party. I don't have a huge sample size but I have roi of around 55% playing 10, 20 and 30's. The key to being successful is being able to play short handed, knowing the difference between a 5 handed game and a three handed game etc.