Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the pro to do once the poker boom ends and NL dies again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot-Limit games will still be around!

[Kimpan]

so there is not a big difference in choosing NL over F? I only play SH.. so the choose stand between either going back to 5/10 short or keep learning and moving up in NL.. (currently at $50NL where I doubt I am a winning player..)
what should I do?... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I hate the swings at 5/10 SH..
in terms of income, what game in NL is equal to the 5/10SH?
NL 1/2 SH?

[Kimpan]

bump

Angavar, it is very possible to lose 10 buyins in a row in small stakes no limit hold em. I lost 8 in one session before at the casino 1/2 NL. Its hard to believe it until you run into 2 higher flushes and a higher set, pocket kings vs aces, and various draws that hit below their percentages. I'm surprised experienced players find that difficult to believe. I've also won 20 buyins in one session at the very same game. But its not uncommon to lose 10.

PkrNinja, Its kinda different in limit. Preflop hand selection is where we're having this discussion. And if a player is faced with the decision of calling preflop(not the blinds), then chances are someone could raise behind them. That is not to say small suited connecters are no longer playable. But they lose dramatic value in limit because when you choose to play with them you could be paying a high price just to see the flop. And unlike no limit, where suited connecters are amazing hands that have tremendous implied odds against overpairs. They will simply call if they sense strength once you hit a straight/set/flush if there's a possibility on board. Making them less valuable hands preflop. There are many books written on limit play. Small stakes hold em is a great one.

You Play at Pacific? or are you a diffrent pkrninga?

i too think that limit might be more popular with good players as the variance is lower and you can grind out the profits....

no-limit you should be able to make more but the swings can be bigger... also, if the fish get aggressive and all-in pre-flop it can makes things fairly difficult. you can still beat them but they are taking away your weapons (intentionally or not).

vis-a-vis poker dying, i just don't see it. it will come off its peak if it hasn't already, but just sunday there were 4-5 guys at my fitness club (out of maybe 10 people total) gathered around a TV with no sound showing WPT (Vince Van Patten).

i think poker satisfies the needs of so many. gamblers, analytical people, fun-seekers etc.. i'd say it's here to stay in a big way.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
Limit is more like a job than NL. It's easier to not make mistakes in limit since math plays a larger role, and when you do err in limit you generally lose less than you would in NL. It's easier to grind it out in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying:

1) Its easier to not make misstakes in Limit Holdem.
2) The misstakes u make are much smaller.

Number (2) is correct, but number (1) is wrong. In No Limit the bad players do fewer but much bigger misstakes. In Fixed Limit they make more but much smaller misstakes. A typical misstake in FL is calling on flop with 4 outs when u really need 5-6 outs. Not a big misstake, but if u make 1-2 such in each pot u will eventually lose your money.

A typical misstake in both FL and NL is calling a raise preflop with a hand like KJo. In FL u will typical lose 4-5BB if u hit toppair against toppair, in NL you normally lose a lot more. This is the same thing as saying that u can be much worse at poker and still survive pretty well at FL, specially if u play in a loose game where u get good odds for drawing. Once they stop showing so much NL on televison (if they ever do that) the bad players will start to play more fixed because they like to play, but not to lose.

I have a question related to this that I haven't been able to find the answer to.

How many BB/100 does a NL player usually make? I know for Limit it's around 3BB/100, but I don't know what it is for NL. That might be a factor as to why they prefer one type over the other.

Although the debate about which form of holdem (limit or NL) has greater variance has been interesting, the answer is not subjective. The results of average play over many millions of hands has objectively determined that over the LONG RUN no-limit holdem has a MUCH lower variance. However, over the very short-term the variance can be higher in No-Limit. But as we all know results need to be taken over the long term. If an individuals results do not conform to the norm then they are either doing something very right or very wrong.

Also, most of the top pro's prefer no-limit to limit. However, because their advantage is so much greater at no-limit it can get very difficult to find a high stakes no-limit game. A wealthy fish can hang onto his $$ a little longer at limit and if he gets a good run of cards he has a better chance of winning some $$. At no-limit a top pro wins more than 70% of the sessions he plays in. At limit even the best pro is unlikely to win more than 55% of the sessions he plays.

So it's easy to see that at limit, small edges need to be pushed where at no-limit a player can, and should, wait to push his bigger hands. The small edges that need to be pushed at limit could turn into disasters at no-limit.

Lou

[deepdowntruth]