|
|
|
|
#2
10-14-2005, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL v. limit
I have to put my vote in to the NL box, I love poker so I will play just about any game wether its limit or no limit. But I get more pissed and just don't enjoy playing as much when its limit. I know suckouts are a part of the game but some times I can't take it (and if you come back and say get over it happens, you think for a second becuase we all do it)
|
|
#4
10-14-2005, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL v. limit
[ QUOTE ]
No one can argue that suckouts don't happen in both games. However, a suckout in limit will not cost you your whole stack, whereas in NL you can be 98% to win and watch your stack disappear in an instant. [/ QUOTE ] That only happens %2 of the time in NL though. Can you see why?
|
|
#5
10-14-2005, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL v. limit
In NL there are MANY more ways to outplay weaker players. weaker players catch on and go play limit where it's not as noticable that they are being outplayed so badly. IMO
|
|
#6
10-17-2005, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL v. limit
[ QUOTE ]
In NL there are MANY more ways to outplay weaker players. weaker players catch on and go play limit where it's not as noticable that they are being outplayed so badly. IMO [/ QUOTE ] Bingo! Someone has finally hit on why limit can be so incredibly profitable. Clearly NL is all the vogue today, but the fact is that a good limit player will crush a bad limit player far more easily than a good NL player will crush a bad NL player. Without the ability to take down a huge pot due to a lucky suckout, the poor limit player will ONLY win by pushing the correct edges, of which he will have limit against a superior opponent.
|
|
#7
10-17-2005, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL v. limit
That should read, "of which he will have little against a superior opponent."
The real issue here is that it's sexy and exciting to be good at reading an opponent's hand, making fancy players and getting him to call with a worse hand or lay down a better hand. It is not sexy and exciting to have a better understanding of probability than your opponents and to crush them over time by repeatedly pushing edges. Everyone who watches poker on TV and just gets started wants to be the sexy hand-reader, because guys like Moneymaker say they don't read poker books, they just use pure guts and instinct. Missing from this discussion is the point that in NL, a bad player can reduce a better player's edge on later streets by pushing all-in, whereas in limit games one has to learn how to develop a solid post-flop game, which I think a lot of inexperienced players who watch on TV are inherently uncomfortable with. No one has also pointed out the fact that at high limits, limit HE is a vastly different game than it is at the lower limits. Sure, that decision to call on the river is only one BB, but when that BB is equal to $200, the decision suddenly carries a lot more weight. At these and higher limits, Limit HE is very much about hand reading and outplaying your opponents. Think about it -- if NL were the true test of a player's ability, why are all of the Big Game players all playing limit??
|
|
#8
10-21-2005, 11:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL v. limit
I play them both about 50/50, but I play NL at very low buy-ins and FL at middle stakes, so my play at NL won't cripple my bankroll and at the FL I don't really need to worry to get much punished.
If it were other way around I would stress my ass off at the NL and would be totally bored at the FL. Which is more profitable? Depends on the person and his luck.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
