Why limit instead of no limit?

[stillbr]

[ QUOTE ]
And 2BB/100 multitabling $2/$4 is not at all difficult to achieve if you study limit hold'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are WAYYYYYY over simplifying this. Only the very best players are making 2bb/100, even at 2-4. The vast majority of 2+2'ers that claim a 2bb/100 win rate are not truely there.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And 2BB/100 multitabling $2/$4 is not at all difficult to achieve if you study limit hold'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are WAYYYYYY over simplifying this. Only the very best players are making 2bb/100, even at 2-4. The vast majority of 2+2'ers that claim a 2bb/100 win rate are not truely there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh, 2bb at 2/4 isn't really that hard.

It seems tha general concensus is that the win rates are higher for no limit and the volatility is less. I checked out the FAQ over at the Small Stakes NL forum and found some useful info that seems to contradict the opinions above. Correct me if I am wrong, please. (Regurgitated from the FAQ) A good winrate for NL is 8BB/100, so at $.50 - $1.00 NL, a good winrate is $8 per 100 hands. The bankroll required for the game is roughly $2000. Comparing this to limit $2-$4, a good winrate is 2BB/100, so $8 per 100 hands. The bankroll required is (worst case) 500BB, so $900. This coupled with the ability to play multiple tables easier should say that for the same winrate, limit is less volatile. i.e. you need a smaller bank to earn the same amount in limit compared to NL. Am I on the right track here.
Thanks,
Shaggy

[olavfo]

[ QUOTE ]
Comparing this to limit $2-$4, a good winrate is 2BB/100, so $8 per 100 hands. The bankroll required is (worst case) 500BB, so $900.

[/ QUOTE ]
500BB = $2000.

[felix83]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems tha general concensus is that the win rates are higher for no limit and the volatility is less. I checked out the FAQ over at the Small Stakes NL forum and found some useful info that seems to contradict the opinions above. Correct me if I am wrong, please. (Regurgitated from the FAQ) A good winrate for NL is 8BB/100, so at $.50 - $1.00 NL, a good winrate is $8 per 100 hands. The bankroll required for the game is roughly $2000. Comparing this to limit $2-$4, a good winrate is 2BB/100, so $8 per 100 hands. The bankroll required is (worst case) 500BB, so $900. This coupled with the ability to play multiple tables easier should say that for the same winrate, limit is less volatile. i.e. you need a smaller bank to earn the same amount in limit compared to NL. Am I on the right track here.
Thanks,
Shaggy

[/ QUOTE ]

You need a larger bankroll, but my understanding is that if you're a very skilled player you won't go through the same long term swings at NL that you do at limit. But really, it's more up to your personality. I have some idea how to play NL, but limit suits me much better (limited risk per bet, much more mathematical at lower limits) so really you should just try both and see which you prefer.

[ QUOTE ]
500BB = $2000.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol. My day just started. So it would seem that $.50 - $1.00 NL is quite comparable to $2-$4 limit with the exception that limit is easier to multitable.

[donger]

To quote Howard Lederer:


[ QUOTE ]

Even if your ultimate goal is to become an accomplished No-Limit Hold 'em player, I encourage you to at least play a lot of Limit Hold 'em. Too many No-Limit specialists get by with almost no post-flop skills. To get good at limit Hold 'em, you will be forced get more comfortable playing after the flop. Getting free cards on fourth street and making close value bets on fifth street are just two of the skills you'll be working on. And those skills are transferable. Developing these skills in limit Hold 'em will allow you to play your hands with all your options available. And your No-Limit results will improve dramatically.


[/ QUOTE ]