Why do many pros preferr limit to no limit?

Hey everyone. I just read this statement recently in another post, but there was no reasoning given as to why. I know that many of you say that you can make a living on 3/6 limit, but is there a reason why you like L instead of NL?

I have been playing full time online NL tables for a few months now. Most weeks I make more than any job I have had before, exept for this week which looks like it will be my second "break even" week so far. I have tried limit tables before (mostly 2/4) but it has not seemed like I did as well. Granted, I have not played for long, because I am pretty inexperienced at limit holdem.

I was just considering studying limit some more (SSHE) but I hoped to hear the reasoning you all like limit more.

Thanks

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.

From my experience up to 5/10 NL and 10/20 limit, the limit tables are also easier to beat.

Pure speculation: The casinos tend to run high stakes LHE games whereas the NLHE is typically 2/5 or 5/10. Also, realize that for pros, it's not a game, but a job - as the previous poster mentioned, the mathematical basis in LHE makes it "easy" to play correctly when you are mindlessly bored grinding out a paycheck.

Thanks for the reply man.

It is suprising that you find limit tables to be easier to beat. I would think that with the tv explosion on NL, the newbies would all flock there first, and the limit tables would have more experienced players.

I really understand your reasoning for liking limit more, and have been considering it more for these reasons. I play NL and play very few hands. only pairs and premiums because my winning hands are usually double ups. Other than that, it is a WHOLE lot of sitting and waiting. Drawing hands are very hard to get in for good prices in NL games. My problem in all of this is that the suckouts and mistakes that I make also tend to cost me a buyin as well.

Anyway, it is getting frustrating so I have been considering limit more. is the 2BB/hr figured as an average per table or is that multitabling?

Thanks again man

The relative lack of variance is a key as well.

At high levels, pros play a game that mixes in NLHE with a cap. I'm not sure what the lowest mixed game spread is in Vegas, though.

In LHE an accepted winrate would be around 3 BB/100 (so multiply this by the number of tables you play). Realize that a $500 dollar bankrolled person would be playing .10/.25 NL making 10BB/100 = $2.5/100 (remember a BB is twice the big blind), where that same bankroll is good for .5/1 (or higher) for a LHE player, making 3 BB/100 = $3/100. If you play LHE it is reasonable to play higher stakes, and the winrates are about the same if you play at your bankroll.

my point is that the winrate in $/100 is about the same in both games. food for thought.

and as a sidenote, I tried limit to clear my party deposit bonus... I got absolutely raped on the BEGINNERS 1/2 LHE (-3.5 BB/100) compared to my NL25 6BB/100 (not so good really but hey its positive and only 6k hands). Could be variance, but I won't be playing LHE for a while.

[ QUOTE ]
The relative lack of variance is a key as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that LHE has much greater variance than NLHE because you can't get your money in when you have the nuts? I read this somewhere, could be wrong.

I think limit has less variance. I've mostly played NL in my short poker life. But I've recently been playing limit as a means to clear online bonuses. In Limit if you run into a higher flush/straight/set/twopair/house it can cost you an extra bet or 4, but in no limit it can cost you a stack worth a few buy ins.(especially against a fish who could've had anything) In limit the pot size/commitment is somewhat consistent so I find luck usually balances out pretty quickly. Where as in no limit if you run into the wrong hands with the wrong stacks at the wrong time you can lose 10 buyins in a session easily. I find limit is a more boring game even though it's far more strategic than most NL players think, since its more math based and less room for fanciness. But if you can beat a .5/1 NL game you can easily beat a 1/2 Limit game - if you make the proper adjustments. The strategies from these two are vastly different so you'll need some "re-education" to get your Limit groove on. (fundamental differences occur such as big cards gain value in Limit and small suited connectors lose value in limit, generally speaking, etc)
Right, guys?

[ QUOTE ]
I find limit is a more boring game even though it's far more strategic than most NL players think, since its more math based and less room for fanciness

[/ QUOTE ]
oxymoron? thats precisely why I find it far LESS strategic.

Quote:
I find limit is a more boring game even though it's far more strategic than most NL players think, since its more math based and less room for fanciness
oxymoron? thats precisely why I find it far LESS strategic.

Not necessarily, just because it's far more strategic than a lot of ppl think. doesn't mean its more strategic than NL. Still, it has fields of strategies that NL doesn't offer. In limit, the lack of riskiness associated with a raise gives more room to use more tactics that a NL player wouldn't use. e.g. a check raise bluff only needs to work 10% of the time if the pot has 20 bets in it. And even if you break even you still advertise for the times when you do check raise with legitimacy.