[Pov]

To be clear, I am referring to micro/low limits throughout this post. So I'm assuming most of your opponents are poor players and your decisions are mostly based on playing ABC poker at 1st or 2nd level thinking. At the higher levels I think limit and no limit are much closer together because most of the game becomes the reads of and mind games with your opponents. At the low limits this is certainly not the case.

[ QUOTE ]
This is obviously an extension from another thread on this board, but I thought it would be good to have a general discussion, from a beginner's perspective, on these two games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea. Warning: I'm going to disagree with your reasoning, but agree on your conclusion - hopefully the useful discussion you're looking for will arise from this difference of opinion.


[ QUOTE ]

1) fundamentals - limit is a game that requires you to learn and respect the fundamentals of poker - counting outs, pot odds vs. draw odds, how to play each street. Because you are denied the opportunity to make bets that force your opponents into bad situations, you must learn how to play correctly to be successful. Someone used a basketball analogy that is apt. You have to learn how to dribble, make a layup, make a jumper, make a chest pass and a bounce pass before you learn to dunk, make the behind the back pass and the crossover dribble.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Playing a hand *well* in limit requires much more fundamental knowledge than in no limit. For a beginner, the main reason to play limit is that their mistakes are not likely to cost them as much money. Pot odds are arguably much more important in no limit. If you draw with poor odds in limit it costs you a bet. In no limit it could be costing you many bets. You're also much more likely to draw incorrectly in no limit since bets are typically much larger in relation to the size of the pot. A limit player will have to be crafty to give you bad odds to your draw while it is very easy to do in no limit.

The reason I say limit requires more fundamental knowledge is precisely because you can't just make your bets bigger to bail you out of a tough situation and force drawing hands to fold. To make a strong profit at limit you must play your marginal hands and play them well, recognize chances to force the field to call multiple bets, know how to save bets and value bet on the end well.

Don't get me wrong, no limit is very skillful indeed and *great* for tournaments, but in terms of cash games, there is a lot more to think about in limit IMO - though if you make a mistake you'll surely be punished more harshly in no limit. The fancy passing patterns and defenses, etc. are part of limit while no limit is more like street ball with a lot of power dunks. There can still be a lot of finesse, but it comes in fewer forms.

So the reason I think beginners should start in limit is because beginners make a lot of mistakes and should play where their mistakes are not likely to destroy their entire bankroll quickly before they can become winning players. Once you are a winning player, I think NL is more profitable though I personally still prefer limit - I find NL pretty boring when not part of a tournament simply because the decisions are usually so clear cut.

[ QUOTE ]

2) bankroll management - because NL requires you to make those large bets, it is much easier to find yourself on a real fast downswing. In limit, if you are playing correctly, you will have your downswings, but they will tend to be more gradual. Onn the assumption that, as a beginner, you WILL make mistakes, in NL, those mistakes are likely to be far more costly than in limit.


[/ QUOTE ]

For a winning player, downswings are smaller in no limit than in limit. The luck factor is smaller in no limit and this means you'll have smaller downswings. For a losing player however - which most beginners will be for a while - limit is more preferable because as mentioned, your mistakes are likely to cost you much more money in no limit while luck is actually helping you in limit and making it hard for your more skillful opponents to totally crush you.


[ QUOTE ]

3) analysis - I believe that it is much easier to analyse your game in limit. Again, because it is a game that relies on fundamentals, and because bet sizes are set, it is much easier to locate your areas of weakness. Do you overvalue your hand on the turn? Are you calling bets that are unprofitable? Because you remove bet size from the equation, these analyses are much easier over the long term. In NL, when attempting to analyse your play, you have to consider the same factors, but you also have to add the issue of your bet sizes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I agree with this either - or at least not the reasoning. Bet size relative to the pot is still the same equation as it is in limit - you're either getting the odds you need or you aren't and dividing by 2 or 3 or 5 is not all that different than always dividing by 2. Analysis probably *is* easier in limit simply because so many good reference texts exist while that area is lacking in no limit IMO.


This is how I feel about limit versus no limit in small stakes, but I admit that while successful at both I have played a lot more limit and it is clearly my favorite so I may be biased. But I think it's the other way around - Limit is my favorite because I get to make more decisions and it feels more tactical, which is what I enjoy about poker. I do prefer no limit for tournament play.