Limit vs. No Limit -- Playing for a Living

[jen]

"The simple fact is, there are worse players at higher limit, limit games, than there are at higher limit NL games...in general."

How can that be a fact? I don't agree with that at all.

If you're playing for a living, then why not play whatever game you can play better.

If you play both equally well, then I'd opt for NL -- it has less variance and is a lot more interesting.

[LokiV]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here! Here!

I've run into too many NL players who excrete things out of their mouthes whenever limit is mentioned. I used to just shrug and figure it wasn't for me, but it's pretty damn hard and more than 'His 2/5 suited beat my K/K! I hate this!'

I'm not nearly up to 15-30, I can barely bank 3-6... but limit goes higher $$$ and is a more mathematical game. It is what I would put my money on if I were in it for that.

I don't think most online sites go above $100 for NL, but I might be wrong.

[mrjetguy]

My general feeling is that fish are more comftorable playing limit, especially at the high limits that most real pros play. So, there is more easy money in limit games. I have quite a bit of experience palying both limit and NL ring games. I did about the same at limit and NL, however I currently enjoy limit more than NL. It may be hard to believe but limit is a VERY complex game (if you want to maximize your wins). You are always trying to get just one extra bet, or save just one bet, because 1 BB/hr is what most expect to win.

[italianstang]

I disagree that fish prefer playing limit. Two years ago that was definitely true, when the only no-limit games in a room were off in the corner and all the players were old cigarette smoking cowboy types with gigantic stacks. That simply is not the case anymore. The hugeness of TV has done three things to no-limit:
1 - Obviously it is spread MUCH more often at all kinds of blind levels.

2 - The night/weekend douches that wander in with their sunglasses on to impress their frat buddies, and all other comparable players quickly choose no-limit, its more "exciting" and you get to say "all in".

3 - Many Las Vegas recreational "gamblers" who have a $500 for the weekend budget are choosing poker over craps or blackjack and end up sitting down in a no-limit game, the only type of game they have ever seen (because of television).

I believe that a good serious player with $100 for example, should not consider sitting down at a 3-6 game and trying to grind out a few pots, instead plunk down the money in a low blind/no limit game, the return is much higher and the opponent quality will not be greater.

[mikimaus]

Not counting the rake, 2-4 is more profitable shorthanded and heads up than 25 NL. What comes to variance, playing limit shorthanded and heads up one need not play as high as one needs when playing full ring and shorthanded.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
NL has less variance then limit, so I think it requires a bit less BR than a limit level with comparable winrate possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

This surprises me. Intuitively I expect the reverse. Why is it so?

[mangarata]

I just spent the day at Foxwoods playing in the 200 buy in no-limit table. Playing tight agressive in 8 hour session was able to walk away up 2200. All it takes is one or two maniacs at no limit table to make some nice hits. I don't think I would of been able to grind out that kind of money at a 3 6 table.

[Kopefire]

Because you can use your stack position more effectively. That means far fewer hands go to the river and you have far fewer marginal hands making miricle draws.