Why choose Limit over No-Limit?

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Is NL or Limit the more challenging form of poker and in which form does the better player have the greater advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is two questions, and the answer might not be the same.

1.1) Does the better player have a bigger edge in no limit than limit.
Answer: Yes.
1.2) Is no limit hold'em a more difficult game than limit hold'em.
Answer: For multitabling, yes. Playing one table (live for instance) I'm honestly not sure. I'm leaning toward NL being a wee bit easier.

The answers to 1.1 and 1.2 don't have to be the same! There are plenty of games that are fairly easy, but in which the fish who didn't bother with even that are totally dead. (Most of these games dry up fast though.)

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi, I know this forum is pretty Limit oriented in terms of what its members play, but I play NL exclusively and do very well at it. I was wondering however, what the draw is to playing Limit over No Limit for you guys (or even vice-versa)? Is it that Limit is more math/statistic oriented? Too much variance in NL? etc...Thanks guys

Cheers, [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

i played 50, 100 and 200 nl "professionally" for the last year, but then i realized i was bored out of my [censored] mind, so i switched to limit. i know its a stupid debate, but to me limit is a much more difficult, precision game. and it doesnt involve folding for 492384023 hours and then getting all in. boresville.

rj

[beernutz]

nm

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Limit is decided by cards. NL is decided by people. That's why I prefer it because I don't always have good cards [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that's why I play limit. I always have great cards!

[JKDStudent]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't you want someone to pay you off with a drawing hand with your made hand. If someone is drawing to their flush he has a 35% chance of hitting it, that means 65% of the time you win. This is especially nice when the drawer isn't getting the odds to call. So for every 3 times I'm against someone drawing to the flush, they pay me off twice to me paying them off once. Thats +EV bro.

[/ QUOTE ]

For your sake I hope this is a troll but I'll assume you really believe that.

In a limit game, you cannot control the odds you give someone on a draw (unless you are in early position and you check hoping someone later will bet so you can make the rest of the field face a double bet - even that is tricky).

In a no-limit game you can control the odds you give your opponent. If he is on a flush draw, then make him pay for it. If you give him bad odds then either you take the pot down right away or he makes a mistake by calling (even if he wins). Implied odds are a significant factor in NL so you need to take this into account and pay careful attention to stack sizes.

The problem with limit is that most of the times players are correct to chase because the size of the bets is so small in relation to the pot size. In effect, bad players are often accidently playing correctly. In NL, bad players rarely play correctly by accident and are made to pay for their lack of knowledge.

In the rather strange example you give above, you may win 65% of the time compared to 35% but that is completely irrelevant. What is important is the odds the chaser has in relation to his bet. If there is $100 in the pot on the turn and you bet $10, he is getting 11-1 to call with his flush draw. He will only hit 1 in 5 times but he is getting 11-1 on his bet. A very good investment for him. If you have the made hand, the $110 in the pot is currently yours and you are laying odds like a bookmaker to someone with only a 20% shot at it but you are giving him 11-1

If this was no limit and assuming you will fold if the third suit comes, you could bet $50, giving him 3-1 on his 4-1 shot. If he calls, you have +EV whether you win or lose. You are now laying good odds on the $150 that is currently yours. If he folds, you keep the money. Either way, you win.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

There is $100 in the pot, and on the turn it is heads up. We have the best hand, our opponent is on a flush draw that will come in less than 20% of the time. If the hand goes to showdown with no further betting, our EV is $80, opponent's is $20.

We bet $10. Opponent is getting 11:1 odds on his call. He only needs roughly 4:1, so he calls. As he should. Does this mean our bet is wrong? NO! We're still winning this 80% of the time. That means of the $20 that just went into the pot (our bet and his call), $16 of it belongs to us. The call is +EV for the flush draw because of the size of the pot, but it's MORE +EV for us.

Also, let's say you put your opponent on a flush draw in that same pot. We bet $10, he calls. The third of a suit comes on the river. We check, he bets $10. We are getting 13:1 to call. That means that we only have to have the best hand less than 8% of the time for the call to be +EV. Can you say with 92% certainty that he was on a flush draw? But in no-limit, he can bluff you off the pot much more easily.

[Fuchida]

[ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

There is $100 in the pot, and on the turn it is heads up. We have the best hand, our opponent is on a flush draw that will come in less than 20% of the time. If the hand goes to showdown with no further betting, our EV is $80, opponent's is $20.

We bet $10. Opponent is getting 11:1 odds on his call. He only needs roughly 4:1, so he calls. As he should. Does this mean our bet is wrong? NO! We're still winning this 80% of the time. That means of the $20 that just went into the pot (our bet and his call), $16 of it belongs to us. The call is +EV for the flush draw because of the size of the pot, but it's MORE +EV for us.

Also, let's say you put your opponent on a flush draw in that same pot. We bet $10, he calls. The third of a suit comes on the river. We check, he bets $10. We are getting 13:1 to call. That means that we only have to have the best hand less than 8% of the time for the call to be +EV. Can you say with 92% certainty that he was on a flush draw? But in no-limit, he can bluff you off the pot much more easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG! I am starting to understand why some people like limit if this is how they think.

$100 in the pot. If you bet $10 in the turn and he calls, then 20% of the time he will lose $10 and 80% of the time he will win $120. On average his call has a +EV of $16 (120 - 4x10)/5. Therefore you have negative EV. I hope you don't think you both have +EV.

I agree that in limit you still have to bet because even bad odds are better than infinite odds. You are effectively reducing the size of your negative EV. However, in NL, you can control the bet and give yourself a +EV situation regardless of the drawing player's actions.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't stand Limit. It's...filled with people drawing a BS all the damn time and I can't price them out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
Limit = People who aren't very good at math


[/ QUOTE ]


Retarded.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
On average his call has a +EV of $16 (120 - 4x10)/5. Therefore you have negative EV. I hope you don't think you both have +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Due to the $100 already in the pot, you do both have +EV. If there is $100 in the pot and his EV is $16, where do you think the rest of the money is going? Do the magical equity fairies come down and take it away?

I played limit for a little while, now play NL exclusively. I'll try limit again sometime in the future now that I believe I'm a better player than I was back then BUT, I don't think you can beat the rush of pushing ALL IN [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]