[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interested in your thoughts . . .
I've been playing micro limit hold 'em for about a year (off-n-on). I play 10-handed, and do not play tourneys. Lately, I've played in a couple NL freerolls to pass the time, and I'm wondering if I should take a closer look at this? Where my head is at right now, I want Limit to continue to be my focus.

My question is -- is NL any more/less lucrative than Limit? Is there a danger that a Limit player will misunderstand or misapply some important NL concepts? Can NL pollute my Limit game, or can my Limit experience make learning NL harder? My perception always had been the bad players play Limit because it was simpler to grasp. Would you agree with this?

I consider myself a relatively solid Limit player at my stakes. My BB/100 right now (after some really discouraging bad streaks) is .85. It had been in excess of 2.0. It's moving in the right direction now. I've got about 12K hands, and I am maintaining a profit for all of it.

Any thoughts on this are appreciated!

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think of limit as checkers, then no-limit is chess.

Players that are excellent at limit can usually learn to reasonably well in no-limit, but yes, I see serious mistakes made by limit players when they start playing NL.

As for NL players learning limit, the biggest problem is being unable to protect their hands, and finding themselves unable to avoid giving other players at the game good drawing odds.

As I said, it's day and night - they are very different.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The checkers/chess analogy drastically overestimates the the differences in complexity between NL and limit.

I'd say NL players' biggest problem in limit is being too loose preflop.
-James