Why should I play NL?

[trumpman84]

The reasons why I switched from limit to no limit was BECAUSE I though limit was mind numbingly boring. I can make about the same in both limit and no limit but I really have to sit there and force myself to play 3-4 hour of limit while no limit I can play for 3-4 hours and not even notice that long has passed.

In limit, you have so few options and so limited creativity for any hand you play. You can't set up a well planned, sophisticated trap that you started working on hundreds of hands before you actually set the trap. and have your opponent unknowingly walk into it and get stacked because it will only cost them one more bet. By the same token, you can't call a bet on a earlier street to set up a bluff when you know your opponent is weak because it will only cost them 1-2 more bet to see your hand if they think you are bluffing.

You have very limited control of the pot size in limit...if you have a strong hand and want to play a big pot, you have to hope your opponent starts raising you, but if you have a vulnerable one pair hand and want to play a small pot, you have to almost always bet anyway and watch the pot get out of control as 4-5 people call you so they will get corrects odds to chase your one pair all the way to the river...I'm not saying this isn't profitable for you, but the purpose of poker is to have your opponents make incorrect decisions and when the pot is 25BB and your opponent only has to call 1 BB to see another card, he can't make too many incorrect plays.

So many more situations, so much more creativity, so much more freedom in no limit which is why it is my game of choice.

Not to say limit is a bad game, but computer bots can play limit and show a profit which shows how uncreative and monotonous that game is.

[gulebjorn]

Because punishing people street after street with pot sized bets when they're drawing to a few outs is so much fun.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can i hear those arguments?


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a link

[ QUOTE ]
Fish can put in $400 or even more at a time on one street in NL 2/4. In limit they can put in $8.


[/ QUOTE ]

So a bad beat doesn't cost you just 8$ but perhaps a days winnings right?

[/ QUOTE ]

More costly bad beats just means more profitable wins. If you lose $200 on average everytime someone hits a 2-outer after getting all-in on the turn, that means you are winning $200 the other 95% of the time.

[DaveduFresne]

I play both, although I consider myself a much stronger NL player. Like I would never come on the limit forum and presume to give people advice, even though I am a winning limit player.

I feel like no limit is more of a challenge, but I actually enjoy my limit sessions more. I don't mind losing a couple of bets at limit due to a bad beat, but at no limit, especially if I'm running bad I feel stressed out a lot because I can lose my whole stack due to one bad decision. I only play $50 or $100 buy in NL, but if you play you know you can often find yourself with 100-200 or even more and often one or more villains at the table who have you covered. I get a very uneasy feeling when I have pocket aces and I've got say $250 at a .50/1 game and a villain smoothcalls me preflop who has a $200 stack. You don't want to go broke with one pair postflop, but on the other hand, you don't want to be bullied by a bluff or semibluff and give a bunch of money away on the hand...it can be a tough situation.

With the way a lot of the games play online, I feel you have to play much tighter in NL than limit also. I can't play KQ offsuit or AJ or even AQ unless its a real fishy table because I'm more likely to lose money on them (by being dominated, than make money).

I believe B and M poker (at least at the lower no limit levels) is a much different game from online. You can come in with a hand like AQ offsuit for a raise and expect to make money.

Online NL (at the lower limits most of us play) is really a game of pocket pairs. On the weekends when you get some looser tables it's a bit different. But most of the time, you're basically waiting to hit sets and hoping to stack an overpair. You see tons of online pros playing even up to 1k buy in NL who play that way.

As you gain experience, you mix in semibluffs and maybe occassional complete bluffs (when you have a strong read) but at least to me, mostly online NL is about waiting to have your opponent dominated. ie Kings vs AK, set vs overpair QQ vs AQ etc.

Limit you can make mistakes preflop and get away with it (as long as you don't have too many leaks) no limit, except for possibly the microlimits, a leak of say calling a raise hu with hands like KQ, AQ, AJ etc is going to sink your br.

I make more money at no limit overall, but I would say limit is just as fun if not perhaps more.

[aK13]

As you know, I'm a heavy limit player, but I just started trying out NL about 2 weeks ago.

My personal feeling is that while you can definitely earn more $$ at NL, limit is better to improve your overall poker game. At NL, you can get into bad habits and play very poorly but still turn a very modest profit just by playing tight and just maximizing on your big hands (AA-TT, AK, AQ) -- I am a fairly good example of such. Aggressive play is MUCH more crucial than tight play IMO at limit, while tight play seems to be more important at NL, and I believe this is the case because NL allows you to turn bigger profits on your monster starting hands (at least for small stakes). To be successful winning player at limit, you must learn how to play marginal situations (like midpairs, blind defense/steal hands, etc.) as well as your monsters well to turn a good profit, while at NL you can ignore these and still win. I also find that players who try to go from NL to limit have a much harder time adjusting than limit to NL.

[DaveduFresne]

Yeah I pretty much just fold my blind to aggression figuring I'm probably going to miss the flop and have to fold.

I don't know that you can say NL players can play "badly" and turn a profit, but many play it like a robot (ie wait for set, overbet the pot to make draws pay, then go all in if it looks like noob is ready to stack off).

It all depends though...I'm sure you can't make money this way at six max NL, and although I play 10 max and am fairly predictable preflop, postflop I can be betting a variety of hands the same way. You won't maximize your winnings "set farming" in NL, but at least at the lower levels you can earn consistant profit. It kind of frustrates how people pay these "robot players" off, but they do.

[AKsPRO]

6-max NL is really fun and very skillful game. Just try it

[kitaristi0]

[ QUOTE ]
6-max NL is really fun and very skillful game. Just try it

[/ QUOTE ]

[Barry5]

I fully agree with every word. I gave up Limit play a few months back. My creativity was being stifled and I was getting bored and in danger of chasing pots instead of playing my usual tight game.

NL gives me freedom and, for the hour or so I play each night, masses of enjoyment. Every hand is interesting to watch. Sure, I don't like losing my entire stack in one hand (which does happen occasionally) but, at least, I have confidence that i can recover it either that evening or soon afterwards. Bad beats in Limit took days if not weeks to recover.

In conclusion, I will NEVER play Limit on line again.

[Ghazban]

The ability to manipulate pot size and bet size to cause opponents to make the largest possible errors EV-wise means that a skilled player's edge of a poor player is much greater in no-limit than in limit. There are many situations in limit where both players are correct to put money in the pot (say TPTK bets the turn and a flush draw calls getting correct odds as an example) and its just up to the cards to see who wins. In no-limit, there are fewer situations where both people are making a +EV decision.

Anyway, its just a personal choice whether to play limit or no-limit. I find limit to be a bit on the mechanical side compared to NL and I enjoy the type of decision-making that occurs in NL over that in limit.