Cash Games: Limit Vs. No Limit

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fundamentals - limit is a game that requires you to learn and respect the fundamentals of poker - counting outs, pot odds vs. draw odds, how to play each street. Because you are denied the opportunity to make bets that force your opponents into bad situations, you must learn how to play correctly to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that us NL players have to learn to count outs, pot odds, draw odds, and play each street.

You over simplify what a person much master to play NL successfully, if it was as simple as betting people out of the pot anyone could be great.

I certainly agree that limit is more welcoming to a beginner because of the swings in NL.

However I believe NL takes a greater level of skill to master and has far more things to take into account during a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you have to learn them.

But the question is, do you want to learn those things while facing one bet or facing a bet for your entire stack?

Your last point is exactly why I think limit is the place to start - master those aspects that are universal so that they are second nature - that way, when you play NL, you can focus on the aspects that are specific to that game.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the reply.

"I disagree. Playing a hand *well* in limit requires much more fundamental knowledge than in no limit. For a beginner, the main reason to play limit is that their mistakes are not likely to cost them as much money. "

I think this is what I was trying to say - that you play limit to learn the fundamentals because you cannot be successful without them. To be a winning player in limit, you MUST master the fundamentals - and you get to do so while limiting the damage that a mistake can make.

However, I would argue that fundamentals are MORE important in no limit because every move has more significance.

On the issue of analysis, this afternoon, on a lark, I played a session of no limit - and here is the thing, most of the hands I won, I won because I knocked out my opponent. I rarely had to show down a hand.

What do we learn from showdowns - that are much more common in limit games - particularly at the lower levels where beginners play?

We learn what hands are more likely to win. We learn what kinds of flops we need for our starting hands to win. We learn what sorts of moves players are likely to make with what sorts of hands.

Those lessons are invaluable when playing NL - specifically because you now have the added ability to bet enough to potentially knock someone out - but you won't know whether that is a good idea or a bad idea until you understand how to evaluate the strength of your hand - which is a skill that you pick up most readily in limit.

Mostly, though, I would say that its all about the mistakes - since you are GOING to make mistakes, its better to make them in limit than in no limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I agree with your conclusion as I said before. I think the point I'm really after is that you don't start in limit because it's easier. NL (at least at the low limits) is in fact quite a bit easier to crush than limit is. We agree though that if you're making mistakes, no limit is much more costly (though you could just play lower limits I suppose).

I think your point about showing down hands is an interesting one. The effects of a multi-way pot would be another interesting item.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
The people at low limit NL tables are USUALLY your typical "I watched it on TV and even I can win!!" people.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is hilarious, and spot-on. i love those guys. remember, ANY TWO WILL DO!

as for NL vs limit, i also think a total beginner should start out at limit, but mostly because, as others have mentioned, noob mistakes and tilt can destroy a bankroll very quickly at NL.

[Student]

Well done!

Dave

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
I find NL pretty boring when not part of a tournament simply because the decisions are usually so clear cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post was excellent until you made this statement [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] I see that you admit you do not play NL much, which is made painfully obvious by this statement, I do not play much limit, but I know enough not to make a blanket statement like "limit is easier because all you do is play your hand and make sure you are getting the correct odds without regard to your opponent's holding"

If you think the decisions are clear cut in NL, then you should go post on SSNL forum and save the rest of us a lot of pain as we discuss whether to call, raise or fold pot sized bets made by fish limpers on a 7-3-2 rainbow flop.

Again, the bulk of your post was insightful; however, that statement made me wonder if you have any idea about how to play NL.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find NL pretty boring when not part of a tournament simply because the decisions are usually so clear cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post was excellent until you made this statement [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] I see that you admit you do not play NL much, which is made painfully obvious by this statement, I do not play much limit, but I know enough not to make a blanket statement like "limit is easier because all you do is play your hand and make sure you are getting the correct odds without regard to your opponent's holding"

If you think the decisions are clear cut in NL, then you should go post on SSNL forum and save the rest of us a lot of pain as we discuss whether to call, raise or fold pot sized bets made by fish limpers on a 7-3-2 rainbow flop.

Again, the bulk of your post was insightful; however, that statement made me wonder if you have any idea about how to play NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you liked the rest of the post, but I think you took this statement wrong or perhaps I was unclear. "I find NL pretty boring" is a personal opinion and as such a pretty safe blanket statement. I find crazy eights boring too. I didn't mean to imply there weren't *ever* tough decisions, but the vast majority of them are quite easy IMO and even if you simply folded every time you were put to a tough decision you would still kill low stakes no limit. The vast majority of your profit comes from suckers who can't fold when you have a good hand. What you do with marginal hands only pads your winrate. In limit, marginal hands are a much larger percentage of your win. Padding your winrate is of course a very good thing and well worth the effort if you prefer NL, but obviously I don't. Remember my disclaimer, we're talking low stakes here. The mind games in a higher stakes game I find intriguing but are definitely out of my league at this point.

BTW, fish don't make pot sized bets without big hands so your decision should be pretty clear. If they do, then they aren't really fish, they're either tricky or a maniac. Your decision should be pretty clear against the maniac too. If he's tricky, well then you have a tough decision, but that is a very small minority of the time.

[4_2_it]

Thanks for the clarification. I clearly misinterpreted your thoughts. I think we are in agreement and I think I am glad you don't play a lot of NL $100 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

What's funny about my example is that I had 27os in the BB in a 3-way pot with the final board being 2-3-7-9-2. A lot of betting the flop and turn by my opponents (who limped pre-flop which is why I was in the hand). I push all-in on river and get called with KK(nice slow-play buddy) and A9os (nice overplay). Thought you might enjoy.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the clarification. I clearly misinterpreted your thoughts. I think we are in agreement and I think I am glad you don't play a lot of NL $100 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Only if you're a donkey. I manage to do fairly well most of the time, but am no threat to the experts at this point in my "career" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. I'd like to think someday I'll have enough time and drive to really get good at poker. In the meantime it's a fun hobby that manages to mostly pay for my other fun hobbies [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].