Limit vs No-Limit vs Pot-Limit

[Sheriff Fatman]

Hi

I've recently been experimenting with playing Single Table SnG's in preference to ring games and am currently building up a sample by which I can assess my results.

So far, playing at 30+3 level, I've stuck primarily to Limit HE tournaments. The rationale for this was that the games would be less of a crap-shoot and, on the basis that I'm a winning limit ring-game player, I'd have more chance of accumulating a decent stack by the time the limits reach the stage where players are eliminated/pressured by the blinds.

So far I'm encouraged by the results (albeit from a sample of only 20 or so events) but have been reading a few posts on here implying that NL events give a better ROI.

In addition, I've found my best MTT results were acheived from playing PLHE events. Again this may be nothing more than coincidence but I do tend to enjoy playing this format, although I imagine its the least popular in terms of attracting the bad players to the SnG's.

I'm intrigued as to people's views as to the 'best' format to be concentrating. I'm tempted to experiment across all 3 but, judging by comments on this forum, I'm unlikely to get any meaningful data without at least 200 tournaments at each level, which will take a while.

The one problem I've found with No-Limit compared to Limit is that I can generally avoid early elimination playing a tight, aggressive game. However, I'm more likely to end up short-stacked playing NL as the money places approach and am therefore much more reliant on being dealt a big hand early on. In the limit games, the drawing hands retain much more value (as I'm not at risk of someone pushing all-in with absolutely anything) which give me more opportunities to get into a defendable chip position during the later stages.

I'd be intrigued as to people's preferences, particularly those who play more than one format at these limits on a regular basis.

Thanks

Sheriff

[Sarge85]

[t_perkin]

Pretty much everyone here seems to play mostly NL SnGs, at least almost all posts seem to be about it...

This might be selective - people who play SnGs (properly) tend to like the less forumlaic nature of them (strategy changes as blinds and no. of players change) compared to ring games. Equally NL is less formulaic than Limit.
I am sure many will argue with that, but its my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]

The one problem I've found with No-Limit compared to Limit is that I can generally avoid early elimination playing a tight, aggressive game. However, I'm more likely to end up short-stacked playing NL as the money places approach and am therefore much more reliant on being dealt a big hand early on.


[/ QUOTE ]

ok talking about $30+3 party SnGs now:

Quite the opposite I would say. The reason that playing tight and aggressive at the start of SnGs is so effective is that you only need win one decent sized pot (1/2 ur stack or more) in the first 4 rounds to be able to sit comfortably until it gets down to 4/5 players. Then it is all about careful stealing and moving in at the right time.

Even if you don't see a card in the first 4 rounds, a few careful moves here and there and you can force people who make bad plays off enough pots that you can get yourself back into it.
Sure it becomes a bit of a crap shoot when the blinds get up to 150/300 and above, but that is the same in Limit. Although I think it is less of a crap shoot than you might think, even in the medium-run good bubble-time skills can win you a lot of extra money finishes.

PF play is very important in the late stages of SnGs and it is much less formulaic than in ring games and there is more room for skill and variety in PF play in NL than Limit.


Just some thoughts.


Tim

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Sheriff,

I think the games are simply different. I don't think any of the three -- limit, pot-limit, or no-limit -- is better than the others. They place a premium on different sets of skills, and you should play the one(s) that best fit your own skills.

LHE is probably the "safest" of the three. You can't be bullied out of a pot by some WPT-wannabe with J-high, so you can play-to-peek at more kinds of hands. If you can read hands reasonably well, the mathematics of poker come to the fore here, because players' actions are constrained and thus more predictable. On the other hand, you can't punish the WPT-wannabes' mistakes quite as severely, so you have to be more patient in applying the beatings.

PLHE is a fascinating hybrid. With a couple of aggressive players, it can play very much like NLHE, but there are a few other skills you need to add to your repertoire, with pot-building probably the most significant. That can be a bit tricky, as you have to raise (to make that made draw or big pair worthwhile), but you also want opponents to call or even reraise (to build that pot). T.J. Cloutier's book has an entire section devoted to building the pot in PLHE, and I think it's worthwhile reading for any PLHE player.

NLHE is the "most dangerous" of the three games. Almost every hand you play carries the risk of ruin. Player- and hand-reading are, in my opinion, the most decisive skills here; they're what allow the better players to stay alive with marginal cards while they wait for the monsters. And, more than LHE or even PLHE, in NLHE you can often win even if you don't have the best hand ... again, if you can read players well.

So again, it comes down to which skill demands best fit your abilities.

Cris

[MensaIQ178]

i didnt finish reading your post- dull. i suggest limit as a starter. you can finish top 4-5 75% of the time playing very tight. get some experience and you will quickly hit top 3 75% of the time. dont let people tell you limit(singles) are bad. yes it is hard to protect a hand, but that is the beauty of it.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Tim / Cris

Thanks for the considered responses. I've continued to concentrate on Limit since my original post but I think I'm going to build up a sample of each game and compare the results. It seems to be an area that there's no real feel for so the results might be of interest to others too (thanks for the bump Sarge, was on the verge of doing it myself).

I think some of my observations about NL are more of an issue at the lower limit games and perhaps disappear to some extent at tables with better players. I find at the 30+3 games that regardless of how much aggression is shown, I'm highly likely to get called down by bad players. The results therefore tend to be either very good or very bad, which is probably why I used the 'crap shoot' analogy.

As Cris pointed out, the mathematics of poker are more of a feature at Limit which is probably where I see my strength, relative to the opposition. Therefore, having more opportunity to use these skills is probably the reason why I currently find this format to be more 'satisfying'.

I think I'll try initially to hit 50 of each format and see if there is anything of interest in the stats. I realise that this is still a small sample but it seems like a good point to have a first look before taking the idea further. I'll look to report the results back here for some feedback when I eventually get there.

Gut feel at the moment is that the Limit results will be better than NL (which is probably contrary to the general consensus) as I'll have more consistent results there. The one I have no real feel for is PL, which to me is the most interesting variant. I think, against the same opposition across all 3 formats, that potentially I'd achieve my best results here. However, I do think that I'm likely to come across better players as the fish will plump in general for either the limit or NL variants.

One thing I'm sure of is that my all round game is likely to benefit from doing this experiment. The short-handed / heads-up experience is particularly beneficial.