Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

Hey everyone. I just read this statement recently in another post, but there was no reasoning given as to why. I know that many of you say that you can make a living on 3/6 limit, but is there a reason why you like L instead of NL?

I have been playing full time online NL tables for a few months now. Most weeks I make more than any job I have had before, exept for this week which looks like it will be my second "break even" week so far. I have tried limit tables before (mostly 2/4) but it has not seemed like I did as well. Granted, I have not played for long, because I am pretty inexperienced at limit holdem.

I was just considering studying limit some more (SSHE) but I hoped to hear the reasoning you all like limit more.

Thanks

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

Limit is more like a job than NL. It's easier to not make mistakes in limit since math plays a larger role, and when you do err in limit you generally lose less than you would in NL. It's easier to grind it out in limit.

From my experience up to 5/10 NL and 10/20 limit, the limit tables are also easier to beat.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

Pure speculation: The casinos tend to run high stakes LHE games whereas the NLHE is typically 2/5 or 5/10. Also, realize that for pros, it's not a game, but a job - as the previous poster mentioned, the mathematical basis in LHE makes it "easy" to play correctly when you are mindlessly bored grinding out a paycheck.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

Thanks for the reply man.

It is suprising that you find limit tables to be easier to beat. I would think that with the tv explosion on NL, the newbies would all flock there first, and the limit tables would have more experienced players.

I really understand your reasoning for liking limit more, and have been considering it more for these reasons. I play NL and play very few hands. only pairs and premiums because my winning hands are usually double ups. Other than that, it is a WHOLE lot of sitting and waiting. Drawing hands are very hard to get in for good prices in NL games. My problem in all of this is that the suckouts and mistakes that I make also tend to cost me a buyin as well.

Anyway, it is getting frustrating so I have been considering limit more. is the 2BB/hr figured as an average per table or is that multitabling?

Thanks again man

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

The relative lack of variance is a key as well.

At high levels, pros play a game that mixes in NLHE with a cap. I'm not sure what the lowest mixed game spread is in Vegas, though.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

In LHE an accepted winrate would be around 3 BB/100 (so multiply this by the number of tables you play). Realize that a $500 dollar bankrolled person would be playing .10/.25 NL making 10BB/100 = $2.5/100 (remember a BB is twice the big blind), where that same bankroll is good for .5/1 (or higher) for a LHE player, making 3 BB/100 = $3/100. If you play LHE it is reasonable to play higher stakes, and the winrates are about the same if you play at your bankroll.

my point is that the winrate in $/100 is about the same in both games. food for thought.

and as a sidenote, I tried limit to clear my party deposit bonus... I got absolutely raped on the BEGINNERS 1/2 LHE (-3.5 BB/100) compared to my NL25 6BB/100 (not so good really but hey its positive and only 6k hands). Could be variance, but I won't be playing LHE for a while.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The relative lack of variance is a key as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that LHE has much greater variance than NLHE because you can't get your money in when you have the nuts? I read this somewhere, could be wrong.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

I think limit has less variance. I've mostly played NL in my short poker life. But I've recently been playing limit as a means to clear online bonuses. In Limit if you run into a higher flush/straight/set/twopair/house it can cost you an extra bet or 4, but in no limit it can cost you a stack worth a few buy ins.(especially against a fish who could've had anything) In limit the pot size/commitment is somewhat consistent so I find luck usually balances out pretty quickly. Where as in no limit if you run into the wrong hands with the wrong stacks at the wrong time you can lose 10 buyins in a session easily. I find limit is a more boring game even though it's far more strategic than most NL players think, since its more math based and less room for fanciness. But if you can beat a .5/1 NL game you can easily beat a 1/2 Limit game - if you make the proper adjustments. The strategies from these two are vastly different so you'll need some "re-education" to get your Limit groove on. (fundamental differences occur such as big cards gain value in Limit and small suited connectors lose value in limit, generally speaking, etc)
Right, guys?

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find limit is a more boring game even though it's far more strategic than most NL players think, since its more math based and less room for fanciness

[/ QUOTE ]
oxymoron? thats precisely why I find it far LESS strategic.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

Quote:
I find limit is a more boring game even though it's far more strategic than most NL players think, since its more math based and less room for fanciness
oxymoron? thats precisely why I find it far LESS strategic.

Not necessarily, just because it's far more strategic than a lot of ppl think. doesn't mean its more strategic than NL. Still, it has fields of strategies that NL doesn't offer. In limit, the lack of riskiness associated with a raise gives more room to use more tactics that a NL player wouldn't use. e.g. a check raise bluff only needs to work 10% of the time if the pot has 20 bets in it. And even if you break even you still advertise for the times when you do check raise with legitimacy.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

You said "The strategies from these two are vastly different so you'll need some "re-education" to get your Limit groove on. (fundamental differences occur such as big cards gain value in Limit and small suited connectors lose value in limit, generally speaking, etc)"

Sorry if I'm missing something here, but I would think it would be the other way around. In limit, I would think that suited connectors gain value, since you will often get a good price on your draw, whereas in NL you often make a mistake in calling a pot sized bet for a draw. It seem that it would be the other way around??

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The relative lack of variance is a key as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that LHE has much greater variance than NLHE because you can't get your money in when you have the nuts? I read this somewhere, could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limit has more variance than NL. And to make it worse, youhave to "embrace" the variance in limit, that is you have to really push small edges. NL is more about pushing big edges.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Limit has more variance than NL.

[/ QUOTE ]
VulturesRow, was my reasoning correct above? Why is this the case?

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
in no limit if you run into the wrong hands with the wrong stacks at the wrong time you can lose 10 buyins in a session easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are having -10 buyin sessions at no-limit then you really need to re-examine your strategy. This simply should not happen at small stakes.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

The Fossilman hates Limit, I don't.

But I prefer No Limit, Full Ring Limit is like factory-work. It bores me so much I go crazy after a hour.

Shorthanded limit i do like. Especially on 2/4 or 5/10 where people sometimes even lay down hands to a check-raise on the turn. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

What is the pro to do once the poker boom ends and NL dies again?

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

i started out playing limit. on Absolute Poker.
i would two table 2/4 or 3/6 full table, and 1/2 6max table.

since a common limit stagedy is playing big hands, at a full table you not playing as often, unless you get a good run of cards.
at the 6 person table which may drop down to 3players or stay at 6, you gonna see more flops, cause your staring hands decrease. This kept me busy, and payed pretty well.


its about the same as two tabling NL.
Now i two table NL low tables and can win more becuase generally people buy in way to high with no idea how to play, and try to bluff like they were on espn

although i still make the same amount roughly, its alittle more fun, and less of a grind

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is the pro to do once the poker boom ends and NL dies again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Feed off the lesser, wannabe pros

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

In full ring SC could be among the best money makers if the table is loose, but in a very tight game or shorthanded game low SCs sucks because the pots doesn't get big enough to give you the implied odds you need. In shorthanded limit big cards rock I think

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

Random thoughts from a former limit grinder burnout who has been playing NL for the past few months and loving it:

1)No limit has much less variance than limit. Especially at 25 and 50nl, losing sessions are very rare. Good for your ego!
2)An NL pro has a huge advantage over a newb since he has infinately more control over the pot odds and can deduce what is going on in the hand better.
3)At limit, it's only a few more bets so it's harder to get say 4 people to fold so if the pot is huge on the flop it's hard to win it right there. In limit, a nice pot size bet in to 4 people will probably let you know where your pocket Aces stand right away.
4)If it's just a job to you, grinding away for hours on end is going to burn you out. Try something new, if not another form of poker.
5)A nice base for a NL bankroll (not your only income) is 20 buys in. If you lose all of that at Party 25 and 50, you're doing something horribly wrong. A bankroll for say 3/6 is 300 x 6=1800. I cashed out a lot of my limit bankroll and paid off some bills once I switched to NL.
6)Clearing bonuses at Party(if ever again) and former skins is very quick at NL. The pot only needs to hit $2.
7)Suited connectors and small pairs can bust a preflop raiser in NL who can't fold his overpairs. Just make sure you're getting the right odds and understand implied odds.

That being said, if you like limit, more power to you. You should be able to play both these days. It will make you a more well rounded player.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is the pro to do once the poker boom ends and NL dies again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot-Limit games will still be around!

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

so there is not a big difference in choosing NL over F? I only play SH.. so the choose stand between either going back to 5/10 short or keep learning and moving up in NL.. (currently at $50NL where I doubt I am a winning player..)
what should I do?... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I hate the swings at 5/10 SH..
in terms of income, what game in NL is equal to the 5/10SH?
NL 1/2 SH?

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

bump

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

Angavar, it is very possible to lose 10 buyins in a row in small stakes no limit hold em. I lost 8 in one session before at the casino 1/2 NL. Its hard to believe it until you run into 2 higher flushes and a higher set, pocket kings vs aces, and various draws that hit below their percentages. I'm surprised experienced players find that difficult to believe. I've also won 20 buyins in one session at the very same game. But its not uncommon to lose 10.

PkrNinja, Its kinda different in limit. Preflop hand selection is where we're having this discussion. And if a player is faced with the decision of calling preflop(not the blinds), then chances are someone could raise behind them. That is not to say small suited connecters are no longer playable. But they lose dramatic value in limit because when you choose to play with them you could be paying a high price just to see the flop. And unlike no limit, where suited connecters are amazing hands that have tremendous implied odds against overpairs. They will simply call if they sense strength once you hit a straight/set/flush if there's a possibility on board. Making them less valuable hands preflop. There are many books written on limit play. Small stakes hold em is a great one.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

You Play at Pacific? or are you a diffrent pkrninga?

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

i too think that limit might be more popular with good players as the variance is lower and you can grind out the profits....

no-limit you should be able to make more but the swings can be bigger... also, if the fish get aggressive and all-in pre-flop it can makes things fairly difficult. you can still beat them but they are taking away your weapons (intentionally or not).

vis-a-vis poker dying, i just don't see it. it will come off its peak if it hasn't already, but just sunday there were 4-5 guys at my fitness club (out of maybe 10 people total) gathered around a TV with no sound showing WPT (Vince Van Patten).

i think poker satisfies the needs of so many. gamblers, analytical people, fun-seekers etc.. i'd say it's here to stay in a big way.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Limit is more like a job than NL. It's easier to not make mistakes in limit since math plays a larger role, and when you do err in limit you generally lose less than you would in NL. It's easier to grind it out in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying:

1) Its easier to not make misstakes in Limit Holdem.
2) The misstakes u make are much smaller.

Number (2) is correct, but number (1) is wrong. In No Limit the bad players do fewer but much bigger misstakes. In Fixed Limit they make more but much smaller misstakes. A typical misstake in FL is calling on flop with 4 outs when u really need 5-6 outs. Not a big misstake, but if u make 1-2 such in each pot u will eventually lose your money.

A typical misstake in both FL and NL is calling a raise preflop with a hand like KJo. In FL u will typical lose 4-5BB if u hit toppair against toppair, in NL you normally lose a lot more. This is the same thing as saying that u can be much worse at poker and still survive pretty well at FL, specially if u play in a loose game where u get good odds for drawing. Once they stop showing so much NL on televison (if they ever do that) the bad players will start to play more fixed because they like to play, but not to lose.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

I have a question related to this that I haven't been able to find the answer to.

How many BB/100 does a NL player usually make? I know for Limit it's around 3BB/100, but I don't know what it is for NL. That might be a factor as to why they prefer one type over the other.

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

Although the debate about which form of holdem (limit or NL) has greater variance has been interesting, the answer is not subjective. The results of average play over many millions of hands has objectively determined that over the LONG RUN no-limit holdem has a MUCH lower variance. However, over the very short-term the variance can be higher in No-Limit. But as we all know results need to be taken over the long term. If an individuals results do not conform to the norm then they are either doing something very right or very wrong.

Also, most of the top pro's prefer no-limit to limit. However, because their advantage is so much greater at no-limit it can get very difficult to find a high stakes no-limit game. A wealthy fish can hang onto his $$ a little longer at limit and if he gets a good run of cards he has a better chance of winning some $$. At no-limit a top pro wins more than 70% of the sessions he plays in. At limit even the best pro is unlikely to win more than 55% of the sessions he plays.

So it's easy to see that at limit, small edges need to be pushed where at no-limit a player can, and should, wait to push his bigger hands. The small edges that need to be pushed at limit could turn into disasters at no-limit.

Lou

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

http://www.balph.net/picture_library/antonio.gif

Re: Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In LHE a fantastic winrate would be around 3 BB/100

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP.