Why choose Limit over No-Limit?

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
For me it's limit becuase of all the books on the game. That's what I've learn to play and do very well. I do want to branch out but researching very slowly. Hard to stop playing limit for a new game when I avg. $135 per hour playing one table at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

with a sample size of an hour?

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
Do the magical equity fairies come down and take it away?

[/ QUOTE ]


Bingo.

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? If this his how most NL players do EV analysis, I might have to switch over.

[Fuchida]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason I am struggling to get this simple concept through

The previous poster was suggesting his EV increases if the chaser calls the bet. That isn't the case. The player with the made hand has negative EV on the chasers call compared to a fold. In Limit the bettor wants a fold, not a call.

If the caller calls the $10 he improves his chance of gaining the pot and therefore reduces the chance of the made hand. If the chaser folds, the made hand gets 100% of the pot

In NL, you can set the bet so that you either get the pot or the chaser makes a -EV call. I don't think I can spell this out any more simply so if it still doesn't get through the limited limit brain, I will just give up.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason I am struggling to get this simple concept through

The previous poster was suggesting his EV increases if the chaser calls the bet. That isn't the case. The player with the made hand has negative EV on the chasers call compared to a fold. In Limit the bettor wants a fold, not a call.

If the caller calls the $10 he improves his chance of gaining the pot and therefore reduces the chance of the made hand. If the chaser folds, the made hand gets 100% of the pot

In NL, you can set the bet so that you either get the pot or the chaser makes a -EV call. I don't think I can spell this out any more simply so if it still doesn't get through the limited limit brain, I will just give up.

[/ QUOTE ]

youre right, but these are limit players so you have to be more clear.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's sthief's explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I kinda thought the opposite

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of thought the opposite of your opposite. Also, if u learn to play limit really well...it will improve your post flop skills at NL dramatically.

You can take any winning limit player, coach him for 5 mins on some differences of NL, betting sizes and such...and he will be able to hold his own. take a NL player into a Limit game and all u will hear about is "I cant protect my damn hand"...well u can, u just have to learn how.

Limit is more stimulating then NL. IMO. But to each his own.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
The previous poster was suggesting his EV increases if the chaser calls the bet. That isn't the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. The chaser is correct to call so by the FTOP, we would perfer that he fold.

[ QUOTE ]
The player with the made hand has negative EV on the chasers call compared to a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sentence is meangingless. Something can't be negative "compared to something else". We are discussing a value. It is either less than zero (negative) or it isn't. 4 isn't "negative compared to 7" just because it is smaller.

If he folds, our EV is positive (because we win the money in the pot and there is more than $0 in there). If calls, our EV is still positive (because we usually win the pot plus his bet and occasionally lose a few bets, so we come out ahead on average). However, our EV is higher if he folds than if he calls, so we would perfer he does that.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean by more difficult?
if its more difficult to win then its limit because its tougher to get your oppenents to make mistakes in limit than no limit
if its more difficult to play then its NL because NL is a more complex game.

[oreogod]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Further proof of how ignorant some NL players can be about Limit Holdem. In fact I will go out and say, this is probably one of the most retarded comments Ive read on this forum...and thats including OOT. I mean damn...I have got to salute u and shake your hand. I didnt think it was possible. Congrats.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
take a NL player into a Limit game and all u will hear about is "I cant protect my damn hand"...well u can, u just have to learn how.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really agree with this. In my opinion, this is what makes limit an interesting game. Learning how to manipulate pot size and plan out lines over multiple streets to protect your hand is interesting and difficult due to the structure of the game. In no limit, it is trivial. You just bet a lot right now. This makes no limit an easier game to play in a lot of situations.