NL vs. Limit for professional players (or semi-pro)

[snowbank]

This question is for all of the people who are professional players or play poker for a good portion of their income. When moving up through the stakes and building your bankroll, what made you choose limit or NL for your game of choice? I find that almost everyone seems to be playing limit hold em if they are playing as a main source of income. I am a NL player, so I'm wondering if maybe they are onto something by doing this(easier competition?) Also, if I wanted to try limit out, how long would it take to adjust my play, and what would be the main changes I would need to make if I were to attempt limit? I've been winning just fine at NL, but if limit in the long-run provides better games at higher stakes or something, I would consider trying it out. All input is appreciated. Thanks.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I started as a limit player (all games, not just hold'em) years ago, because no limit was basically unheard of, except rarely in tournaments. After the poker boom, I took up no limit as well. Today, my bankroll comes from a combination of those two sources.

Today if you live in places like Las Vegas or California you will probably be able to find no limit games on a regular basis. Of course you can find them everywhere online, if that is your thing.

If you are going to try and make a living playing poker, you're going to have a hard time doing it playing exclusively no limit. There just aren't enough good games of high enough stakes to do so, tho I suppose it's possible if you are good enough.

In order to play professionally as a LIMIT player you really need a LOT of experience and you need a very solid game. The differences between limit and no limit are VAST. The time required to master limit hold'em enough to make a decent living at it is long. You're going to find limit much more frustrating because you simply can't bet enough to protect your hand.

al

[builtiz]

I've been playing strictly limit for 3 years or so now and have come to enjoy it way more than NL.

I've recently been working on my NL game but find the slow pace to be somewhat boring and tedious. If you go on a bad run of cards in NL it can seem like your sitting at the table for weeks as people massage their chips, talk random non-sense, and do so much damn acting you would think they were auditioning for their first porno!(j/K).

Limit allows for a lot more decisions, a lot more opportunities to get "creative" (although you can get very "creative" in NL with you bet sizes etc. your just restricted to how many times you do this before someone calls and you go broke if you miss).

NL sucks because one bad decision can break you to where you've lost all the money in front of you, this will rarely happen in limit.

NL is more fun because you really have to read people well, and some of the drama it creates can be interesting.

Still, I will always stick to limit and I really think the best players are cash game limit holdem players.

[snowbank]

Is it true that it is harder to move up stakes in NL than in limit? The reason seeming to be that say someone moved from .50/1 to 1/2 to 2/4 multitabling each, the swings could go from $250 to $750 to $2000( made up numbers) I just threw those numbers out there but you get my point, that in NL the swings can be so much more extreme each level you move up, where in limit you can still ONLY lose a certain amount per bet. What do you guys think in the long-run is worth playing?(while keeping in mind maximizing profits to be of course the key objective, but realizing the greater risk factor in NL)

[MrBlini]

[ QUOTE ]
(while keeping in mind maximizing profits to be of course the key objective, but realizing the greater risk factor in NL)

[/ QUOTE ]Assuming a limit and a no-limit game with similar average pot sizes and typical competition, NL has signifiantly less risk for skilled players. It also has greater potential return. The chief drawback is that most players lacking the skills required to compete in no-limit ring games give up no-limit play after being beaten to a pulp repeatedly, the logical result of their skilled counterparts experiencing greater return with less variance.

Losing NL players often discover that they can minimize their losses by participating in tournament formats. These, alas, are very risky for even the most skilled players.

[snowbank]

Could you elaborate on why you think NL is less risky? I agree that the profit potential is maximized but the risk seems like it would be as well.

[MrBlini]

I don't have an ideal explanation why this is the case, but the adage that you can't protect your hand in limit is largely true. In limit hold'em, it is often correct for people to chase with all manner of hands, resulting in lots of pots that good players "should" win that they don't.

In no-limit hold'em, it is rarely correct to chase longshots. Players who do so are frequently committing catastrophic errors that typically result in skilled opponents winning a lot of cash very quickly.

I have a couple of "typical" numbers for your perusal.

Ratio of standard deviation to win rate, 2/4 and 3/6 limit hold'em: 11.5

Ratio of standard deviation to win rate, $25/$50/$100 capped no-limit hold'em: 4.4

For a player with these statistics, limit hold'em is a far riskier game than no-limit when played at stakes with similar earnings potentials. However, an adequate bankroll and prudent management thereof will ensure the player's ability to participate in both limit and no-limit games profitably.

[highlife]

[ QUOTE ]
In limit hold'em, it is often correct for people to chase with all manner of hands, resulting in lots of pots that good players "should" win that they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd rather everyone play like rocks in limit? I don't know about you but if I get chased down a bunch of hands I know I'm in the right game, and if I play long enough I have a good chance of beating the game within my bankroll for the session. I could sit a NL game and take two bad beats and blow my whole roll for the night in 20 minutes.

Nuts to protecting your hand, I'll win (and make the draws pay dearly) with top pair top kicker enough times to ride out all the bad beats I get.

[MrBlini]

[ QUOTE ]
So you'd rather everyone play like rocks in limit? I don't know about you but if I get chased down a bunch of hands I know I'm in the right game, and if I play long enough I have a good chance of beating the game within my bankroll for the session.

[/ QUOTE ]Of course. However, as a direct result of being in a good limit game, your variance is going to be much higher than in a similarly good NL game. Limit is more risky at similar levels of return, which is what I stated. The comment you quoted was not a statement of personal preference but rather an attempt to explain how it may be that a limit game has higher proportional deviation.

[ QUOTE ]
I could sit a NL game and take two bad beats and blow my whole roll for the night in 20 minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]Then you're sitting in a no-limit game that is too big for your bankroll. Find a smaller game.

[ike]

I'm a limit player exclusively and not changing any time soon.
That being said, MrBlini is just incontrevertibly correct in saying that risk/return is greater in limit. In limit it is very difficult to make a mistake of the size that the fish in a comparable no limit game regularly make.

[snowbank]

I think Mr. Blini said that limit is a riskier game than NL. I am interested in your feelings on why you think limit has a greater return than NL. In NL you can make fish make big mistakes, where in limit those mistakes can only cost them a bet or two, where in NL you can take their whole stack in one play.

[turnipmonster]

I primarily play live big bet (pot limit mostly), but play limit online some.

it seems like a lot of limit players that want to move to big bet want to do that because they are on a bad run and feel they can't protect their hand, they can finally punish the fish, and so on.

problem is, limit fish are a lot different from big bet fish. and big bet is a very different game, since it's better to be aggressive with nothing than it is with top pair, ok kicker. people are just not going to be paying you off all the way with bad kickers and stuff like in limit.

in a lot of cases, limit players that jump into big bet games ARE the fish. good NL/PL players want them to have TPTK, and other such marginal hands. this is less true of lower limit NL games, but very true of 5-5 and up games.

so many times I've been playing, and after watching for a while realizing that the guy everyone thinks is an action player and a fish is really the best player at the table, who knows how to give up small amounts of EV in exchange for action on their good hands. scares the hell out of you, first time you realize that.

--turnipmonster