Limit vs. No Limit -- Playing for a Living

[AdamL]

Can someone explain to me the different qualities and specific characterstics of the two games with respect to playing for a living?

I know about the differences in play quite a good deal, but I haven't any idea how that would translate to professional play.

I would initially guess NL would require a higher bankroll and pay *less* relative to the bankroll you have.

Thanks for your input.

Adam

[Reef]

the only guys I know that play for a living play NL. Because frankly, limit sucks

[Glenn]

"Because frankly, limit sucks "

That is a dumb, dumb statement. I've noticed a trend among people who say this...they have no clue how to play limit, but instead of admiting that, they just say no one can do well at it. Nothing against no limit, it's fine, but the majority of people making a living playing poker right now play limit, especially if you don't count the nits in the party $50 games who live over their parents' garages.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
"Because frankly, limit sucks "

That is a dumb, dumb statement. I've noticed a trend among people who say this...they have no clue how to play limit, but instead of admiting that, they just say no one can do well at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree. It sounds as though this person believes that poker is all about "bluffing" or "moving the other person of his/her hand."

The poster does not seem to understand the mathematics behind limit.

But that's only my opinion,

Adam.

[Bez]

I only used to play PL/NL until recently but have discovered that limit is a far more complex and challenging game than I had previously thought since gaining more experience at it.

[LokiV]

[ QUOTE ]
I only used to play PL/NL until recently but have discovered that limit is a far more complex and challenging game than I had previously thought since gaining more experience at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here! Here!

I've run into too many NL players who excrete things out of their mouthes whenever limit is mentioned. I used to just shrug and figure it wasn't for me, but it's pretty damn hard and more than 'His 2/5 suited beat my K/K! I hate this!'

I'm not nearly up to 15-30, I can barely bank 3-6... but limit goes higher $$$ and is a more mathematical game. It is what I would put my money on if I were in it for that.

I don't think most online sites go above $100 for NL, but I might be wrong.

[Atropos]

NL has less variance then limit, so I think it requires a bit less BR than a limit level with comparable winrate possible. For example I think you can roughly make the same in the 25$ NL games as in the 2/4 limit games, but you need less than half the bankroll.
However it seems that the quality in the high-buy in nl games is higher than in high limit games like 15/30.
So if you have the same edge over the other players in NL as you have in Limit, then you should obviously play NL. Most players have a bigger edge in Limit I think.

[mikimaus]

Not counting the rake, 2-4 is more profitable shorthanded and heads up than 25 NL. What comes to variance, playing limit shorthanded and heads up one need not play as high as one needs when playing full ring and shorthanded.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
NL has less variance then limit, so I think it requires a bit less BR than a limit level with comparable winrate possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

This surprises me. Intuitively I expect the reverse. Why is it so?

[Kopefire]

Because you can use your stack position more effectively. That means far fewer hands go to the river and you have far fewer marginal hands making miricle draws.