Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

Maybe a dumb question, but I know very little about NL.

Why is limit more popular? It seems most pros and semi-pros here play limit HE. There seem to be more limit games available than NL and more books are written about limit.

But browsing the NL forums, I keep seeing things like these:

- In NL, you have a greater edge against bad players.
- NL takes less of a bankroll to play at equivalent stakes.
- Bad streaks don't last as long in NL.

It seems, if these things are true, then it would be better to play NL if you are looking for a steady source of income from HE. And if you are playing just for fun, NL seems like it would be more fun also.

So how come more people play limit?

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In NL, you have a greater edge against bad players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the answer to your question. Bad players go broke faster and normally have fewer winning sessions in nl compared to limit. 1 bad decision in nl= their enture buy in, 1 bad decision in limit is just an extra bet.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

Multitabling is a lot easier playing limit.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

A few reasons:

* Limit is much more multitabling friendly.
* Fish goes broke faster in NL. In limit you keep milking em.
* Finesse vs. macho.

Personally, I just hate when people push and I hold two pair or TPTK.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

there is more literature (2+2 especially) on limit. so its easier to pick up without going bust a few times.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

correct.

this is mason's argument basically too.
that limit hold-em is a good enough balance in the variation.

the lucky fish win enough to keep them coming back, and the expert players have enough of a long-run edge to make it surviveable.


if it was entirely skill-based with NO variation (like if I played Garry Kasparov in chess) then it wouldn't work as well for income...because the skill-ful would ALWAYS win and the fish would just bust-out too darn fast.


I'm not sure whether I totally agree with the argument or not...but I certainly understand it and I also acknowledge that I haven't been around for NEARLY as long as Mason nor am I nearly as good or even have close to the understanding of the differences and similarities in the games that he does.


Obviously things are changing in the NL scene these days partly because of the increasing popularity due to TV coverage.

But Mason still seems to have similar concerns regarding the long-term prospects for NL...especially those NL games with a no-cap buy-in where the fish can just get broke too darned fast.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

It is more fun.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

NL is more stressful.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why is limit more popular?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is, and I don't think it's close. I think it just seems that way on 2+2 b/c of 1) the forums you read and 2) the reasons other players have mentioned. There is more written about it and it's easier to multitable, so its attractive to the 2+2 audience, who want to seriously study the game and make money from it.

Try getting a soft, mid-size limit game in NYC though, compared to an equivalent size NL game....

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

the answer is that most people arent good enough at NL yet they are at limit as limit is a far easier game to become a consistent winner (obviously given variance).
at limit you almost always know the correct move - its easy at the lower limits (till 10-20 id say). you just play 4-6 tables and slowly win. yes you have bad sessions, but thats down to variance, not bad play, unless you arent a good enough player.

NL is a lot harder to be a successful player, you need far more experience and judgement to be a consistently winning player.

personally i find it amazing how many people play online limit. ive been a winner at both limit and NL and id always prefer to multitable NL than limit, its simply far less variance and far greater winrate. I play 4 ring NL tables and 1 omaha ring table (great table to have as an extra, just flick back and only play the nuts, easy money over time)

i dont get this idea of fish losing their money faster in NL being a downside?? so rather than trying to extract their money over a course of time, you can take their money a lot faster....i know which i prefer to choose, plus some of the fish keep pumping in another buy in and a few of us on the table are each hoping it'll be us to take down the ineveitable big pot the fish will very likely lose.

i can imagine there being a lot of limit players who have learnt the game and been successful, yet if they try NL they have an idea but dont understand the finer, crucial aspects of the game. they can hold their own by dont understand the concept of if you show strength, and someone shows strength back (ie. min raise or larger raise), then they probably have you beat, and you fold the hand, rather than thinking 'oh, he's trying to bluff me' or 'but i have TPTK, i have a chance of winning the pot'. also, its a pretty simply trail of thought that dont try to win big pots with medium hands, there's a reason a lot of money is in the pot, yet you dont have a great hand, because the other guy is milking you. i read 'unlucky' hands where people were all in with the K high flush and the guy has the ace high - they are still some supposedly 'sound' players who would be all in with K high flush (only time i would be is if i have seen the opponent be all in without the nuts).
also there arent a number of books telling you how to play every type of hand vs every type of opponent, and so it relies more on personal skill and experience rather than reading a book.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

I can't imagine changing to limit holdem. I can comfortably 4 table NL at more than 10BB/100, no way I could get such a win rate in limit games.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i dont get this idea of fish losing their money faster in NL being a downside?? so rather than trying to extract their money over a course of time, you can take their money a lot faster....i know which i prefer to choose, plus some of the fish keep pumping in another buy in and a few of us on the table are each hoping it'll be us to take down the ineveitable big pot the fish will very likely lose.


[/ QUOTE ]

when people lose too consistantly/ quickly, they quit putting money on the table or switch games. In the short term, there's loads of advertising bringing in new players. They NL games of yesteryear died for a reason. They will die again; however, with the current influx of new players, enjoy the games while you can!

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

NL sucks and it's boring

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

Limit is more structured and suits my style of thinking better. The idea of spending an hour building up a stack and then losing it all with the 2nd nuts does not appeal to me.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
limit is a far easier game to become a consistent winner (obviously given variance).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Do you see why?

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

In a S&M way.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
limit is a far easier game to become a consistent winner (obviously given variance).

...

NL is a lot harder to be a successful player, you need far more experience and judgement to be a consistently winning player.

personally i find it amazing how many people play online limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limit is easier? Right about now I hate you. It (limit) drives freakin NUTS. There is no logical rational reason to cold call 2-3 bets preflop with >50% of the hands I see shown down.

Because of the above and variance I think Limit is harder to learn to be a consistant winner. I know I'm using what I win at NL to fund learning limit.

It's the sheer number of people playing limit online that I even bother with it. I _think_ the volume comes from people's natural desire to be like the Pros on TV and play hold 'em, BUT, they don't want to risk it all (possibly) on every hand. $30 at .50/1 or .25/.50 makes for a lot more thrill calling down chasing than $30 at $25NL calling a push with crap trying to suckout.

So much of limit is odds I'll make it, odds they won't make it better, and odds of next to act re-raising thereby blowing my odds to call. NL is am I beat?

***** disclaimer:
I'm coming off a 10hr bonus whoring marathon vs every in till the end maniac on Party and Crypto thank God there were times only NL tables were open session. YMMV.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
NL sucks and it's boring

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And if you are playing just for fun, NL seems like it would be more fun also.

[/ QUOTE ]
This may be true live, but it's certainly not true online. Have you ever tried playing NL ring games online? They are exteremely boring.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine changing to limit holdem. I can comfortably 4 table NL at more than 10BB/100, no way I could get such a win rate in limit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds great. Please tell us how you do it.

/twang

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't imagine changing to limit holdem. I can comfortably 4 table NL at more than 10BB/100, no way I could get such a win rate in limit games.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That sounds great. Please tell us how you do it.

/twang

[/ QUOTE ]

My win rate at $50 nl (6 max) was the same:
Total Hands: 21,909, VP$IP 31.99, SB VP$IP 53.17, Folded SB to Steal 74.35, Folded BB to steal 61.73, Att to steal blinds, 13.1, Won $WSF 34.92, Amount Won: 2,228.91, BB/100 10.17, WSD: 26.13, W$SD: 49.23, PF Raise 8.67%, You think I just ran hot? I know 20k hands is a small sample size, and I know my stats certainly weren't ideal for no limit (a little too loose, a little too passive preflop), but by just playing on the weekends, I found the competition so soft, i could just go all in with monsters and get called.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no logical rational reason to cold call 2-3 bets preflop with >50% of the hands I see shown down

[/ QUOTE ]

YEAH! That's why it's easier! Get it?

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This may be true live, but it's certainly not true online. Have you ever tried playing NL ring games online? They are exteremely boring.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you played short-handed NL? I think it's fun as hell as you can be very imaginative in your strategies. Limit is boring because there are only a couple ways to win (TAG). In NL, you can make many styles work for you. TAG, LAG, even passive can work for certain people. It's a beautiful game, although the edge is just too high for good players... but the games are good now, and they will be for a while - so take advantage when you can. I've been playing for 5 years now, and my biggest losing streak is like 6-7 buyins.... much less swingy than typical limit play and I win a boatload.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

I think that limit hold'em is played by more people for 2 reasons. There is less variance in individual hands, and it is more profitable for a given bankroll. The first statement is obvious -- you can easily lose an entire buy-in or more in a single hand even when you get your money in as a very solid favorite in NL. In limit, you will usually only lose a few big bets.

I am not sure the second statement is true, but so far it appears to be true for me. I think that it is more profitable for a given bankroll due to the larger short term variance in NL. Because of the larger potential variance in NL, you need a very big bankroll to handle the swings. For instance, when I clear a deposit bonus on party poker, I used to play the $50 NL game with $0.25/$0.50 blinds. I could almost definitely beat a higher limit, but I did not feel comfortable with the possibility of losing $100-$200 on a single hand -- therefore to play at these higher limits I would need a larger bankroll to feel comfortable. In the time I played these games, I could beat it for ~25 big blinds per 100 RAKED (don't have esimates for total # hands) hands, which comes out to about $12.50 per 100 (per hour, or at least close?). The last couple bonuses I have cleared, I have 4 tabled $2/$4 limit. I was able to clear around 10 big bets per 100 raked hands or $40/100 raked hands. A small sample size and really good variance contributed here, but my conclusion that $2/$4 limit is more profitable for me is pretty clear. I felt more comfortable playing $2/$4 limit than I would at, say, $0.50/$1.00 NL because I could not lose an entire buy-in on one hand, even though the blinds @ $2/$4 are twice as high. My bankroll requirements may be quite a bit different than others on this board, but it's what I feel comfortable playing at -- and this is ultimately what bankroll considerations are all about for me. Also, just as a side note, I'm a better and more experienced NL player and I think it's more fun and requires more skill to play. But, I still think that limit is more profitable for me when I play at levels I'm comfortable with.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
NL sucks and it's boring


[/ QUOTE ]

This suppose to be a joke?

Lawrence

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

Matt, the short term variance in NL is much less if you are a good player than in limit - so your assumptions are incorrect. It has to do with the amount of edge you get on your big hands. You will be bad beat and lose a buy-in once in a while, but you win so many of those big hands that it's very hard to have a large negative swing unless you are prone to tilt, play bad for some reason, etc.

To put some numbers on this - it's common knowledge that you should have around 20 buy-ins to play in typical capped online NL game. At 5-10 $1000 buy-in, that's 20k and you can make about $200 / 100 hands if you're an expert and pick good games. Now lets say you play $20/40 limit and make 3 BB / 100, or $120 / 100. You should have probably 500BB online, so your bankroll should be 20k as well. NL is better for the expert to play.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NL sucks and it's boring


[/ QUOTE ]

This suppose to be a joke?

Lawrence

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not. I agree with it.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

I'm sure sthief is serious. I feel the same way.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
To put some numbers on this - it's common knowledge that you should have around 20 buy-ins to play in typical capped online NL game. At 5-10 $1000 buy-in, that's 20k and you can make about $200 / 100 hands if you're an expert and pick good games. Now lets say you play $20/40 limit and make 3 BB / 100, or $120 / 100. You should have probably 500BB online, so your bankroll should be 20k as well. NL is better for the expert to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

but the expert can play more limit tables than no limit tables. And I don't think many people have 500 big bets for their limit, I'm at 300 right now and planning to move up when i hit 200-250 of the next limit. I've seen people reccomend as low as 150 BB at a given limit.

I have strict table selection and only play a single table at a time though. So my bankroll doesn't go crazy. For me to have 1,000$ to play one table of 1/2 would be a little silly, imo. It would sound perfectly normal to me if someone said they play any limit with 300 BB, even at 6 max

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

Weak players get to play more hands and see more showdowns playing limit.

NL is also insanely boring.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

I'm sure poker would be super popular if they televised those non-boring limit games [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Are you guys insane? in some games I have a 40% VPIP - how is this boring compared to an 18% in limit games. And you can multitable fine at NL with practice (although this takes more relative skill than for limit players). How is it boring to play more hands? How is it boring to risk $1000s on one hand? How is it boring to push in bluff some guy and have him fold because you read him right? I don't get it - please explain why it's boring...

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

Sometimes if I get a little bored playing limit I'll play a little NL online just to mix it up. I usually last about 5-10 rounds and can't take it any more. Online NL is extremely boring IMO. Live, not quite so bad.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

What channel do they show these no limit ring games on gomberg? not that i'll be watching.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

live at the bike - NL much more entertaining than limit

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure poker would be super popular if they televised those non-boring limit games [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Are you guys insane? in some games I have a 40% VPIP - how is this boring compared to an 18% in limit games. And you can multitable fine at NL with practice (although this takes more relative skill than for limit players). How is it boring to play more hands? How is it boring to risk $1000s on one hand? How is it boring to push in bluff some guy and have him fold because you read him right? I don't get it - please explain why it's boring...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is one biased crowd we have here. Their best argument seems to be that NL is boring with no explanations why.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure poker would be super popular if they televised those non-boring limit games [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Are you guys insane? in some games I have a 40% VPIP - how is this boring compared to an 18% in limit games. And you can multitable fine at NL with practice (although this takes more relative skill than for limit players). How is it boring to play more hands? How is it boring to risk $1000s on one hand? How is it boring to push in bluff some guy and have him fold because you read him right? I don't get it - please explain why it's boring...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is one biased crowd we have here. Their best argument seems to be that NL is boring with no explanations why.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there are tons of reasons why, it's just that no one here cares to rehash this same debate for the 1000th time.

PS To the original quote in this thread - playing for the "OMG I JUST BET $1000 I'M SOO EXCITED" feeling is the first step on the road to trouble.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

It's slow. You play less. You wait longer. You make far fewer decisions. But at the same time you since reads are so much more critical in NL you really can't (or shouldn't) play as many tables.

And as Jeff said,

[ QUOTE ]
playing for the "OMG I JUST BET $1000 I'M SOO EXCITED" feeling is the first step on the road to trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's slow. You play less. You wait longer. You make far fewer decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

well - at least you gave reasons. I have to disagree with the fewer decisions part. I play soooo many more hands in NL than limit that I have far more decisions to make (and usually more important ones than in limit). As far as slowness, a full table plays at 50 / hour instead of 60 / hour for limit ring. Short plays more. So you have a point there.

And it's great fun to be a LAG - you limit tighties should try it sometime.

I feel the same way as you about sit'n'goes actually - they seem boring to me. Limit is ok, I just love NL as it fits my creative personality better and I hated the swings when I played limit primarily.

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

Good points, and I used to think the same things. I still believe what you say is true for the higher stakes games where play is tighter and quite a bit better on average. I think what has been contributing for my much higher win rate at limit is the looseness and generally bad play at the $2/$4 tables. It seems like players are much less willing even at very low stakes NL to play trash cards preflop and chase their draws when you can make pot sized bets and threaten their stack. You will get occasional players like this, but they're relatively rare compared to the small stakes limit games (but when you do, it sure is fun). I can generally get my big hands payed off by 2 or 3 people even when I'm betting the whole way at a low stakes limit game -- probably because they stand to lose so much less in a given hand, so they'll chase or pay you off to see if they're ahead. As you move up in limits though, the players tend to understand the game a lot better so this huge edge disappears, making the NL game more profitable for the more skilled. I essentially agree with your point of view, except I think the edge at the small stakes limit tables is greater than what you're giving it credit for (and your corresponding edge at equivalent NL stakes isn't as large).

As far as the variance goes, I think my greater expectation in the $2/$4 game may be clouding my results because I don't see so great a downswing. One thing I don't quite understand is how the variance can be greater in a game where you can stand to lose maybe 10 BB on a given hand vs. NL where you can lose several buy-ins going against a big stack with a big stack of your own. Is it because these situations in NL are so rare that these huge multi buy in swings fall out of the range for the standard deviation for variance? I see your argument, but because of this potential in NL it seems at least a little counter-intuitive. Can anyone explain the math behind this?

Re: Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I see your argument, but because of this potential in NL it seems at least a little counter-intuitive. Can anyone explain the math behind this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done some thinking about this and can't give a great mathematical explanation yet but I believe it has something to do with not getting sucked out on as often, and when you do, you are getting a rediculously high EV per betting round to compensate you. I'd like to see someone post a more analytical response.

It is counter-intuitive but I've played limit for 3 years and NL for almost 2 years. My swings are drastically less in the NL form. Some of the best limit players on this forum have had 400+ BB downswings in limit while at NL a comparable downswing by a good player is very, very rare.