Limit vs. No Limit?

[SheridanCat]

This question always interests me because, until about 3-4 years ago, it didn't exist. The reason being that outside of tournaments there were really no no-limit hold'em games available live and very few online. It was assumed that people would learn limit hold'em first.

[ QUOTE ]

Then I read this where the second poster recommended against Limit because he felt NL was easier to learn, had less variance and because there would be an UNlearning curve when you made the move from limit to, in his words, "real poker."


[/ QUOTE ]

The NL vs limit snobbery has really got me puzzled. I think a lot of this comes from people who don't really understand either game. They think that since you can lose your entire stack in NL, it is somehow a "manly" game. I play both limit and no-limit and you definitely see this at the tables as well - usually from the weak players. These players tend to whine about limit suckouts and being unable to protect your hand. The funny thing is, they don't really understand what it means to "protect your hand"; they think it means shoving all your chips in to induce folds. It's terribly uninformed.

I do agree that NL is an easier game - if you are patient and skilled. Those traits will also make it a game with lower variance. That said, NL allows you to level the playing field some by removing the skill advantage other players might have. Read Ed Miller's Getting Started In Hold'em for advice on how to play beginning no-limit.

Since I learned limit hold'em before NL, and since there is much more study material available, I usually recommend limit hold'em for those just getting started. I tend to think the decisions in limit are more difficult and interesting, so that's my primary game.

[ QUOTE ]

Now, leaving the "real poker" comment aside, is there any data from respectable sources on the variance of limit vs. NL?


[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't leave the comment aside. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As for specific posts about variance differences, I don't have them handy. I think that for the skilled player, the variance will be lower. However, variance isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Good luck,

T

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
The NL vs limit snobbery has really got me puzzled. I think a lot of this comes from people who don't really understand either game. They think that since you can lose your entire stack in NL, it is somehow a "manly" game. I play both limit and no-limit and you definitely see this at the tables as well - usually from the weak players. These players tend to whine about limit suckouts and being unable to protect your hand. The funny thing is, they don't really understand what it means to "protect your hand"; they think it means shoving all your chips in to induce folds. It's terribly uninformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo. Well stated (notwithstanding the apparent confusion over the original citation).

FWIW I've tried to catalogue some of these "pros and cons" here, which might better be moved here. As always feel free to add your own content.

Incidentally, I'm feeling that i'm having some setbacks learning NLHE, mostly because one or two impulsive actions based on a false "read" can undo an hour of patient tight play. But learning to act less impulsively and to demand a sound rationale for my actions should help me become better at both limit and big-bet poker.

[Allinlife]

"Crushing" winrate
in limit: 4ptbb/100 hands
in NL: 10ptbb+/100 hands
I think this higher winrate cap is the proof of NL having less variance.

NL is easier game because it is easier to manipulate pot odds, and cause worse players to make big mistakes and get the worst of it, where as in limit, it is hard to directly charge the worse players as hard since a bet in limit represents much smaller proportion of the pot...especially in multiway pots (10:1+ pot odd being common).

p.s)refer to pzhon's explanation on the 'real poker' comment [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]