NL v. limit
 

I've started playing a lot of limit lately and I've decided something once and for all.

NL is harder. Despite playing much more NL than limit, I find the decision-making in NL consistently trickier, particularly if you have a stack of any consequence. More options and all in to simplify decisions isn't often one of them.
I think it is more difficult to make money in limit consistently though due to the greater luck factor in the game in the short run working with the same bankroll as in NL.

Re: NL v. limit
 

I have always liked limit better than NL as I feel that Limit is a game of math more than NL. Not being able to push people off of hands/having yourself pushed off a hand make these games very very different from each other.

With that being said I believe it is much easier to make money at limit vs NL if you understand how to play both of them.

Re: NL v. limit
 

This is very funny as I was just having this discussion on a non-poker basketball board - but the question is "which is more profitable?"

I would argue that for most players, limit is actually more profitable because it is easier to find the edges and exploit them - in no limit, you have to be extremely skilled and be able to read really well if you want to succeed.

So what do you all think? Which is more profitable for the average player? limit or no limit?

Re: NL v. limit
 

[ QUOTE ]

So what do you all think? Which is more profitable for the average player? limit or no limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the average *winning* player EV/Variance is generally going to be better in no limit play. For the losing player, neither is profitable.

Re: NL v. limit
 

I think that you have me confused.

You state that NL is a more difficult game, then you say it is harder for you to win MONEY at limit. What yard stick are you using to measure the difficulty of NL. Is it winning money, or as you suggest the need of luck?

I think that the general consensus is that limit is the more difficult game but that NL can punish mistakes very badly. I play mostly limit and some NL, both of which I suck at, but I spend a lot of study on limit so limit seems easier for me.

Re: NL v. limit
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think that the general consensus is that limit is the more difficult game but that NL can punish mistakes very badly. I play mostly limit and some NL, both of which I suck at, but I spend a lot of study on limit so limit seems easier for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The joy of poker: Games that it's easier to burn people in, are also games that it's easier to get burned at.

Re: NL v. limit
 

Even though this has been discussed several times I don't get bored with the limit vs NL debate.

Really the easier of the 2 depends on the person and whether they excel and enjoy Math or Reading skills more. Sort of like asking whether science or math is the more difficult subject.

So I believe the answer is different for everyone.

Re: NL v. limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even though this has been discussed several times I don't get bored with the limit vs NL debate.

Really the easier of the 2 depends on the person and whether they excel and enjoy Math or Reading skills more. Sort of like asking whether science or math is the more difficult subject.

So I believe the answer is different for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you can still enjoy the topic. I know it's a common one, but since I formed a strong opinion I felt like throwing it out there. I know Ciaffone and Malmuth/Sklansky have been arguing their sides for a many years.

While I believe I can make more money in no limit (primarily because I punish mathematical mistakes that others make more than in limit), I also believe it to be a more difficult game. It's much more stressful and I find I need to think longer and more carefully in order to make the best decisions.

Partly, I think it's a function of the low limits I play. I do fine at 2-2 and 2-3 no limit and at 6-12 limit, but I find no limit to be more profitable. I can play 6-12 limit on auto-pilot even against out there players. Whereas I have to have it pretty well together to play no limit. I'm sure things get more interesting at higher limits, but even then it seems that limit is the easier game.

For a while, I thought limit was harder, but that's until I learned to adjust to the nature of the game rather than trying to play it the way I played no limit at the time.

Since I find most players aren't that good at these limits, I think limit is a better choice for them as they'll usually lose their money more slowly. I choose no limit when it's available, but might start playing limit if I feel NL will be more difficult.

Consistent with what you say, I find the math very easy which may be why limit seems easy. Based on the structure of the games, I get the feeling that limit is easier regardless of limit and opponents. I don't get that many physical reads, but I usually have some idea what people have. Not sure if you consider that a read.

I'm not sure how well I expressed the thought before, but I think while the decisions are more difficult in NL and that overall it's a more difficult game, I think it's harder to make money in limit. You need more consistency and you also need more luck. Once you get beyond the short term, the luck obviously becomes a less significant factor. In NL, the high reward of a good decision compensates for its difficulty.

I say all this after having maybe 1000x as many playing hours/table in limit as opposed to no limit.

It might also have something to do with the fact that almost every book I've read focused on limit and not no limit.

Re: NL v. limit
 

I started with NL. I took a long hiatus to limit. And now I am back at NL. I think there is good money to be made in both. However, I keep my sanity better in NL.

Re: NL v. limit
 

I have to put my vote in to the NL box, I love poker so I will play just about any game wether its limit or no limit. But I get more pissed and just don't enjoy playing as much when its limit. I know suckouts are a part of the game but some times I can't take it (and if you come back and say get over it happens, you think for a second becuase we all do it)