limit vs NL

[dink]

OK so I have just started playing some NL, success at pokeroom and stars and a little down at party (where I can never seem to win anyway)

I reckon NL has the potential to pay you off big time, but with that potential you have a wider fluctuation of your bank roll. I have had some big payoffs, but then I have been stung a couple of times too.

What do people think are the pro's and cons of limit vs NL.

I like that you can set your own odd's for other players drawing in NL, for example with KK in your hand and two suits on the board or a possible straight you can bet enough so that it is a mistake for someone with a draw to call.

I also need to work on keeping players in the game by betting enough so they call but not letting them call too cheaply.

I know I am rambling, what do other people think the benfits and disadvantages of NL vs limit are?

Dink

[sin808]

I don't play NL, but from my observations (and everything I've read about it) it's alot more about playing the player than limit is. Limit is much more mechanical, ABC Poker. NL is much more psychological, and requires significantly more skill in reading players. I prefer limit primarily because I'm very logic oriented, so the mechanical nature of it appeals to me more. NL players make alot of illogical moves, but they make them based (hopefully) on their read of the player they are involved with. I only play online, and without being f2f it's even harder to read your opponent. Your variance can also be very high with NL. Now for someone who likes psychological warfare more so than just straightfoward solid poker, doesn't worry about the variance, etc then NL is probably way more lucrative than limit play is. It's got infinitely more subtleties of play than limit can offer.
At least those are the pro's and con's based upon my experience, personality and where my intellectual skills(or lack of?) lie. Your mileage may vary.

[AAmaz0n]

[ QUOTE ]
I reckon NL has the potential to pay you off big time, but with that potential you have a wider fluctuation of your bank roll. I have had some big payoffs, but then I have been stung a couple of times too.

[/ QUOTE ]

My experience with NL has been just the opposite. I remember reading a post by Lori (or was it Lorinda?) some months back indicating that you could expect to make about the same amount per hour playing the Party $25 NL as their $2-4 limit game with half the variation. This seemed counter-intuitive, but I decided to give it a test.

I had long favored NL tourneys, but always played limit in cash games, so I had to adapt from a tournament stance to one which was a bit less frantic; no raising blinds every 20 min, depth of stacks much larger, unlimited rebuys, etc. After a short trial on UB's points NL tables, I started to hit the Party NL.

After a short trial, playing both the 2/4 and NL, I was making the same hourly rate at each, and yes indeed the variation was half at the NL as it was at the limit game. The initial test was only for 1000 hands, not a very high number, but the stats have remained the same since then.

Although you can lose your buy-in in any given session, consider what you buy in for at 2/4 - maybe $80? You could lose three consecutive buyins at $25 NL and it would be less variance than losing one 2/4 buyin.

I think that the factors you state, being in control of the pot odds; punishing chasers, being able to take pots down with a bet, lead to being more in control of your money at the table rather than only being able to put in one bet at time and not being able to narrow the field much at limit.

At least this has been my experience so far.

Shauna

[Baulucky]

Similar experience here...so far.

[dogmeat]

When you look at similar games of Hold'em (meaning the amunt you should be able to win per hour), NL will provide much less variance to your bankroll. If you play on Party, you might buy-in to the $2/$4 game with their customary $100. This same $100 buy-in can put you on four tables of $25 NL.

If you have any experience at NL, you will probably do better on the four tables than the single limit game. You will see 4x as many hands and get into the "long-run" quicker, thus lowering your ups and downs. The win rate per table should be almost the same. So, by risking the same $100 you can make 4x as much by playing the four tables of NL.

I have a lot more experience at limit, but am struggling at the $5/$10 tables at Party, where I buy-in $250. Currently I am making much more playing three tables of $25 or $50NL while risking only 1/2 as much /images/graemlins/wink.gif This keeps my bankroll smaller and gives me more cash to spend. Dogmeat

[MS Sunshine]

"but with that potential you have a wider fluctuation of your bank roll."

For a winning player this is not true. Much less varience in NLH for same earn that is in limit.

MS Sunshine

[goodguy_1]

It really matters how good the NLHE games you are referring to are.
As NLHE gets tighter the disparity shrinks.For example when Party had 6-12 great games going constantly at all limits in full NLHE games it was very easy to have a very high hourly and low hourly standard deviations BUT the games have tightened up and with this hourly earns have come down for all solid players also their hourly standard deviations have also risen versus the old passive fishfest.

This being said NLHE games still offer you a better ratio of hourly earn/hourly sd then Limit games BUT IF the NLHE games continue to worsen and they become complete rock gardens-your hourly earn will fall and your hourly sd will rise.

In other words if the Party NL games get crappy be ready to play Limit poker again because those will be the better games to play in my opinion.

[GrannyMae]

another fine poker post

STOP IT!!

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/y/remybussi.gif

[AAmaz0n]

Ok. since it is eternally your birthday in here, I'll put something OT up that you might find fun.

Shauna