Party $3/$6 vs. $ 100 NL

[O Doyle Rules]

Hi All,

I posted a similar question in the general forum but did not receive much of a response.

$3/$6 limiy vs. $ 100 NL -- Which game is more profitable and has the greater variance?

I played alot of $ 25 PL early in my online career for a nice profit, but then moved to limit poker. Any players who has experience in both games I would love to hear from.

Thanks.

[crockpot]

depends on your style and how good you are at each game.

if you play an ultra-tight style of no-limit, only playing pocket pairs, AK, or suited aces/connectors in late position and folding flush or straight draws to big bets, your variance will be higher at limit. but if you play a lot of hands and play them strongly, it will be higher at no-limit.

a very good player can make $10/hour at either game, but the question is how much you can make on top of that. no-limit requires you to pay more attention to your opponents to really maximize your profits, which means you gain less by playing multiple tables than you do in limit.

[Brad G]

I have played both games quite a bit.

Lets make an assumption. You are a solid player at both games. If so then I think your best bet is to play the no limit, but to play a very tight game.

At that level you will get paid off even if you sit there like a rock for hours. Unlike a live game where people with notice your rock status and not give you action, online they seem to pay off anyway.

I find the variance to be a fraction of the size in no limit vs limit.

If your skill level is a bit lower, the limit might be the ticket. You will have larger variance day to day, but you elimintate the chances for sessions where you loose a ton (assuming you dont tilt). One no limit mistake may cost you your stack.

My favorite analogy (and its stolen from somebody) is of touch to tackle football.

If you are 275 pounds and run a 4.2 forty (in poker tearms, a very strong player), would you rather be playing touch (limit) football or tackle (no limit) football. Pretty easy to answer, and the converse holds as well

Good Luck
Brad

[eMarkM]

For me, it's been NL, no doubt. I've been very consistently winning at $100 & $200. As the others have said, it depends a lot on style. If you like to splash chips around you're going to have higher variance at NL. But play very tight and solid, rarely chase without odds, don't race your chips off, and it's pretty straight forward to play and win. There's a lot less schooling in NL since you can acutally protect a hand and drive out the loose limpers with a big raise. Play solid, but you have to mix it somewhat or the regulars will catch on to your rocky style. However, I reserve all "wild" play for when I have position.

You'll be winning smaller pots with big raises on premium hands preflop and your TPTK hands after the flop. You can protect your hand in NL by potting it and love it when they do chase. You'll lie in wait for hours sometimes to hit that home run and watch that "out" icon flash up on the other guy's empty stack when you hit a set against his TPTK. That one hand often is your whole profit for the night. But you also have to get away from TPTK hands when Mr super-passive-limp-with-73s check raises you for a pot sized bet.

I find note taking to be more effective at NL since it's a smaller pool of players. I see the same players more often in the fewer NL games that are run compared to 3/6. You'll get the regulars pegged in their style and can play them accordingly. Game selection is even more important in NL. You only need one big fish in the game to be profitable as you're just lying in wait for when you flop big and he pays you off with his whole stack. Don't let one of the regular players, many of whom are very good and very tricky, have position on you. They'll make your life hell, espeically if you play tight/solid, they know they can run you off a hand.

My biggest hole right now is paying off a set or bigger hand when I have TPTK. That's leads to my big swings when my carefully built stack gets decimnated when I get married to this fragile hand. If you know when you have to get away from TPTK, you go a long way to being profitable and reducing variance immensely. Set over set is another stack crusher, but those are very difficult to get away from in these shallow stack games. I usually toss small pairs away in EP to avoid this killer. Flush over flush is another, so mostly come in on nut flush draws when you do play them. Thankfully, those situations are pretty rare.

The suckouts in the limit games drove me nuts, schooling is the norm in limit. My swings were often pretty large. In NL, you'll get sucked out on too, but mostly you're HU when you push in with the set and the flush draw calls and comes through. But that lone caller is making a much bigger mistake in NL when it's the correct play in limit. You want your opponents making lots of mistakes, not correctly calling. Much easier for the clueless to screw up NL than limit as one mistake costs them everything. Played correctly, I think NL has both better profit potential and lesser swings.

[Zag]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are 275 pounds and run a 4.2 forty (in poker tearms, a very strong player), would you rather be playing touch (limit) football or tackle (no limit) football. Pretty easy to answer, and the converse holds as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like all answers on this forum, I will say "It depends." If I am 7 ft 6 in, then, at 275 pounds, I'm pretty spindly and I am going to get hurt in tackle football. And I definitely wouldn't want to risk my multi-million dollar pro basketball contract playing football of any sort.

--Zag, nit-picker extraordinaire [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[vector]

Excellent post eMarkM, this sums up my NL experiences also.

One tiny thing I disagree with you on: folding small pairs from EP to avoid set over set. The chance of set over set is so negligible that (as long as the money isn't hideously deep) I believe the profit you make on set 2s will easily pay for the times you face an overset.

I would fold small pairs in EP if I didn't think there was a good chance of getting to see the flop with a limp, which is the same behaviour but for a different reason.

The more I play the more I conclude that sets and nut flushes are where the money is at. Instead of being the TPTK guy who gets busted by a suckout set, I want to be the guy doing the busting!

And patience, patience, patience is key.

--vector

PS: I also used to play a lot of 3-6 limit, and NL 1-2 is far more profitable for me.

[Shaun]

There is no doubt about it. If you are a very good NL 100 player you will make, on 3 tables, more money with much lower variance than you would in 3-6 at 3 tables, even if you are great at both games.

The schooling in limit is a killer, and as others have said, in NL you can protect hands and cause opponents to make monumental errors. I played multiple tables of 5-10 for a while, and though I won some money, the swings were huge and very irritating. Now I play 3 tables of No Limit and am winning more money, more consistently, and with much, much lower variance.

However, if you are uncomfortable with making large bets, risking your whole stack, etc, then limit is the safer road emotionally. For me personally, the bad beats in limit are much more irritating. This is because even if your opponent makes a mistake it is usually never that far from correct for him to call. In no limit you can get more money in in hugely profitable situations.