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.

[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.

[Shaun]

This depends on your bankroll, what type of variance you are willing to accept, and what type of game you enjoy the most. A good living can be made playing NL now that the online games have taken off.

I find the NL games to have a smaller variance than comparable limit games. A 3000$ bankroll is much better off in 100$ max NL games than it is in 5-10 in my opinion (assuming you play multiple tables) and from my experience you can make more money per table playing the 100 max than you can 5-10.

But, if you want to play higher, it might be better to play limit poker. If your bankroll is 20 grand you might be able to maximize it more in 15-30 and up, rather than the 5-10 NL games that are offered at some sites.

With a smaller bankroll I'd go with NL.

[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.

[dogmeat]

I can't even begin to explain the "different qualities and specific characteristics" of the two games. READ. There are a lot of good books out on the market now.

As far as bankroll, the higher your bankroll the better you will do in limit games online. Assuming you are nursing a tiny bankroll of say $500, you can make more per hour playing NL online than limit, while keeping a small (say 5%) element of ruin (loss of the whole $500).

Generally it is assumed that a solid, winning player can keep this small element of risk in check if he plays a limit that he has 300 big bets for. With a $500 bankroll, you can barely play $1/$2 limit and make maybe $6-8 per hour. If you play no limit, you can play the $25 buy-in at Party and have 25 buy-ins,and that should keep you at an element of ruin of 4-5%. You can also beat this game for the same amount, maybe a bit more, with reduced variance.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Whistler]

The simple fact is, there are worse players at higher limit, limit games, than there are at higher limit NL games...in general. Therefore, imo, limit is the better way to make a better living.

[DOMIT]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what has been said about being able to deal with a lesser bankroll in NL, and that it's possible to beat the game for more than a comparable limit game. However, remember what you said about differences in play. It's possible for someone to be much better in the talents required in one game then in the other.

Also, don't discount "emotional bankroll". I've had a bad run recently where I had top-two beat by set, and set under set twice, each time I lost my stack. I knew that I could potentially lose my cool, so I switched up my game to limit and now have been enjoying a very nice run where I've made up what I lost in NL and more. The key, though, is that I knew if I kept to just the one flavor, one more loss of my stack and I could lose the emotional bankroll and either tilt off or become so passive and defeated that I lose the $ bankroll.

As another poster stated, be sure to read on the two flavors. I'm sure you'll have one appeal to you more than the other. Then, start small and build yourself up. The experience, patience and roll that you build is necessary for a sound foundation.

Peace
Glenn

[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.