NL v. limit

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that a lot of people here are simply making up reasons why they think NL is better when, if they were being honest, the truth is that they like it more because they have the opportunity to be more aggressive and to push people around - its a power thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think for many NL players its not a power thing. There are simply more tools in the shed for a NL player when compared to limit due to non-restrictive betting, leading to larger winrates and a larger gulf in skill between good and bad players.

I will preface this by saying, I do not consider myself a limit plaeyer. I have played limit, but I primarily pay NL. I think the the argument, which is more difficult, is a very difficult question to answer. You can profit at both, it's just done differently. You have idiots playing both games that have no idea what they are doing, and those are the idiots you profit from. Sometimes there are tables where you identify a player that might be as good as you, if not better. You try to avoid confrontation with that guy, unless it's cheap. You do both in both games.
Now, you can make more money off of a guy that overvalues his hand in NL, than in limit, for example, those dummies that play any ace. When they hit their ace and think it's good, and you have a better kicker, he might pay you off. The trick is, knowing how much he's willing to pay. If he tries to go all in and you call with AK, you'll take his stack. In limit, you can make the same read, but you're restricted to how much you can get out of him at that particular time, you can only raise so much. It takes away the decision you make as to how much to bet to bring him along without betting him out of the pot, or, if you can induce a bluff, what size bet will get him to do that so you can break him, you just can't break a guy in one hand in limit, unless he's already short-stacked and hasn't reloaded. Then again, you get those idiots in NL who put half their stack in pre-flop heads up with something like suited connectors or any two cards (they were suited after all) and suck out when you raised with a monster. You have to know your opponent and know how he plays to avoid being sucked out on like that. I prefer NL because, for me, it provides me a better opportunity to exploit bad players and take advantage of it to the fullest.

[UBPLayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't say which is easier or harder...but...

NO-LIMIT is WAAAY more profitable if you know what you are doing.

You can make so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit. Example: yesterday I bet 3x the pot with quads. My opponent called with top full. I made 50BB's (big bets) on the river alone. That's close to 2500 hands of profit at limit (2BB/100).

There are people out there making in the range of 10BB/100 in no-limit. Due to the restricted betting in limit poker, this is just not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Mistake.

You are equating a BB in limit to a BB in NL...Big Mistake. In your words playing 4/8 limit is the same as playing NL with 2/4 Blinds? That is silly. You need to have a MUCH larger bankroll to play 2/4 NL than 4/8 Limit. You cannot equate the two the way you do. Winning 2BB/100 in limit is probably more like winning 15 or 20BB/100 in NL based on bankroll size.

[eisanm]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to know your opponent and know how he plays to avoid being sucked out on like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is one of the best things that can happen. You get someone all in with 76s, you having KK, and you are actually complaining, because maybe once in 10 hands, you'll get sucked out?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.

However, to measure profitability isn't only about BB/100. I also think it doesn't matter how much it is relative to your bankroll size.

Think of it in terms of $ / hr. That's the only thing that actually counts, and here multitabling comes in.
Playing several tables will guarantee you a lower BB/100 but increase your hourly rate unless you're a loser, since the multiple tables more than compensate for your lower win rate per hands played.

I've heard from better players and I know a few limit players who play up to 10 tables simultaneously.

They don't play no-limit, but they do believe that a good NL player could play at most 4 or 5 tables, because of the better information and concentration it needs to play NL.

Therefor, limit could potentially be more profitable because you can play more tables.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe this is one of the best things that can happen. You get someone all in with 76s, you having KK, and you are actually complaining, because maybe once in 10 hands, you'll get sucked out?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you did misunderstand me, but it's my fault; I did not express that clearly. What I meant was, it's very important to know the range of hands your opponent in a pot plays and how he plays them. It's a good thing to know that an idiot would invest half his stack pre-flop with a hand that needs a lot of help to defeat you, especially if you're showing strength. It's just frustrating as hell, because when you do get a monster like pocket kings, you hate losing with them to a hand that shouldn't have been there based on the price you they were getting. I probably sound hypocritical, that I'm saying you want guys making those kinda of mistakes, but it can put you on tilt easier when they do suck out. When you win those hands you just think, "ha, idiot, thanks for the money, ATM." But when you lose, you lose a lot more money than in limit and it really pisses you off. I still think I failed to express what I'm trying to say. The point is, you want guys like that around, you just don't want them getting lucky against YOU.

If the NL buy-in is 100 *big blinds*, and you need 20 buy-ins for a bankroll for NL, and if you need only 300 BBs (2x big blind) for a limit bankroll, then you can play with the big blind 3.3x higher in limit. So each BB/100 in limit could be equivalent to 3.3PTBB/100 in NL. Sounds roughly equivalent in earn. Good limit players are 2-3BB/100, while good NL players might be 6-10 PTBB/100.

Furthermore, I think that limit encourages you to stay on top of your game. You can't wait for monsters and trap opponents for their stacks in limit -- you need to exploit every edge all the time to make a good win rate. This is true in NL as well, but in my experience it is easier to get lazy in NL.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]

Big Mistake.

You are equating a BB in limit to a BB in NL...Big Mistake. In your words playing 4/8 limit is the same as playing NL with 2/4 Blinds? That is silly. You need to have a MUCH larger bankroll to play 2/4 NL than 4/8 Limit. You cannot equate the two the way you do. Winning 2BB/100 in limit is probably more like winning 15 or 20BB/100 in NL based on bankroll size.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if im misunderstanding your point. The way i read it, you are trying to say that you should compare winrates of $25 NL ($2.5/100 at 10 BB/100, blinds of .10/.25) to .5/1 Limit ($2.5/100, at 2.5 BB/100, blinds of .25/.50). If so, this is wrong. You should be comparing similar blind structures because it is the blinds that determine the number of hands you get for your $$$. If you never play a hand $25 NL costs the same amount to play as .25/.50 Limit, and your ROI for the blinds is WAY higher in NL.

I played Limit for a year and just started playing NL seriously. I find against terrible small stakes players NL is way easier. Because the players at these levels makes such big mistakes, you can just sit around and wait for good hands and have them pay you off. Its not as interesting as Limit at these levels but there is way more money.

[ QUOTE ]
You can make so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also lose so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit.

[Post-Oak]

I think that it would be a lot a lot harder to design a highly competent bot which plays full ring NL, than a bot which plays limit. NL is a far more complex game.

NL sometimes requires daring/courage, where as limit requires more mental toughness as far as absorbing bad beats is concerned.

I'm really not sure which is "easier" for humans. I just think NL is more complex.

[Salva135]

[ QUOTE ]


I think for many NL players its not a power thing. There are simply more tools in the shed for a NL player when compared to limit due to non-restrictive betting, leading to larger winrates and a larger gulf in skill between good and bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO the gulf in skill between good and bad players is WAY larger in limit. In the long run, a poor limit player is in far more trouble against a superior limit player than a poor NL player is against a poor NL player. In limit, the poorer player has no way to reduce the edge the superior player has in post-flop play, which he can eliminate in NL simply by going all-in. In the end, he will be crushed.