Why choose Limit over No-Limit?

[LargeCents]

I play limit.

The reason I play limit is because that's all that they offered way back in the "old days" when online poker first started. I went out and bought HEFAP and read and reread it until I was skilled enough to turn a profit. I still do.

When NL became available, I was intrigued by it, especially since that's all they show on TV poker shows. I've played in a lot of NL tourneys online and live, but cannot get comfortable playing NL ring games. I think it's purely a matter of experience. I just haven't invested enough hours reading the right books (I don't even know what these would be), or plain and simply playing. I tried a little NL last night, after reading this thread, for variety. I was pissed after I played AQo the same way I'd play it in limit, except making pot sized bets. I got a bunch of callers, but the flop was my dream flop, I keep betting only to run into a set. I just don't know what to watch out for, and mistakes are gonna take my whole stack, rather than a few BBs here and there. The learning curve just seems too steep, and I'm happy just playing limit for now.

[Fuchida]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

There is $100 in the pot, and on the turn it is heads up. We have the best hand, our opponent is on a flush draw that will come in less than 20% of the time. If the hand goes to showdown with no further betting, our EV is $80, opponent's is $20.

We bet $10. Opponent is getting 11:1 odds on his call. He only needs roughly 4:1, so he calls. As he should. Does this mean our bet is wrong? NO! We're still winning this 80% of the time. That means of the $20 that just went into the pot (our bet and his call), $16 of it belongs to us. The call is +EV for the flush draw because of the size of the pot, but it's MORE +EV for us.

Also, let's say you put your opponent on a flush draw in that same pot. We bet $10, he calls. The third of a suit comes on the river. We check, he bets $10. We are getting 13:1 to call. That means that we only have to have the best hand less than 8% of the time for the call to be +EV. Can you say with 92% certainty that he was on a flush draw? But in no-limit, he can bluff you off the pot much more easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG! I am starting to understand why some people like limit if this is how they think.

$100 in the pot. If you bet $10 in the turn and he calls, then 20% of the time he will lose $10 and 80% of the time he will win $120. On average his call has a +EV of $16 (120 - 4x10)/5. Therefore you have negative EV. I hope you don't think you both have +EV.

I agree that in limit you still have to bet because even bad odds are better than infinite odds. You are effectively reducing the size of your negative EV. However, in NL, you can control the bet and give yourself a +EV situation regardless of the drawing player's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

...are... are you serious? A little piece of me just died inside reading this.

There's $100 in the pot. He has a flush draw, which means he will LOSE 80% of the time. Not win. WE are making the $16 on the bet and call.

Yes, two people can have positive EV. Because of money already in the pot.

Just... wow. Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can people really be this dim? Yes, you get $10 if he calls and doesn't make his draw but you lose $110 if he does make it. I can see that a career in professional poker was a +EV move if people are really this bad at math.

OK, last time - with all the math

100 in the pot plus 10 from you

If he folds, you get $110 on average

If he calls, you get 120 80% of the time and nothing 20% of the time. Therefore on average you get (120x4)/5 = $96

Therefore, if he calls, you lose $14.

How can this not be any clearer???

Please explain, with the supporting math rather than the usual, 'just because it is', how you gain money if he calls?

[Fuchida]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
first they ussually have pot odds second you can make a correct call without pot odds.


[/ QUOTE ]

The very definition of whether or not a call is "correct" is whether you had the correct odds to make that call, if you have the incorrect odds, the call is incorrect. Not sure what you are trying to say here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can call a bet with implied odds if pot odds are insufficient but you have a good handle on how your opponent plays. This is a lot more important in NL.

[Fuchida]

[ QUOTE ]
I play limit.

The reason I play limit is because that's all that they offered way back in the "old days" when online poker first started. I went out and bought HEFAP and read and reread it until I was skilled enough to turn a profit. I still do.

When NL became available, I was intrigued by it, especially since that's all they show on TV poker shows. I've played in a lot of NL tourneys online and live, but cannot get comfortable playing NL ring games. I think it's purely a matter of experience. I just haven't invested enough hours reading the right books (I don't even know what these would be), or plain and simply playing. I tried a little NL last night, after reading this thread, for variety. I was pissed after I played AQo the same way I'd play it in limit, except making pot sized bets. I got a bunch of callers, but the flop was my dream flop, I keep betting only to run into a set. I just don't know what to watch out for, and mistakes are gonna take my whole stack, rather than a few BBs here and there. The learning curve just seems too steep, and I'm happy just playing limit for now.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hand you will probably lose most money with in NL is AQ because of the reverse implied odds. I won't even call a raise with it unless I have a good read on the raiser's choice of raising hands in his current position. However, I might call with something like 76s if the raise isn't too large and the money is deep. With position you could also reraise in NL with perhaps a pair of 9s because of the massive power of position in NL if he calls.

The problem with AQ is that you will win small pots against weaker aces and lose big pots against AK, 2P or sets. If a lot of money goes in and you have one pair with AQ, you aren't winning and its time to get out unless you have a read on your opponents bluffing strategies.

[chrisg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I play limit.

The reason I play limit is because that's all that they offered way back in the "old days" when online poker first started. I went out and bought HEFAP and read and reread it until I was skilled enough to turn a profit. I still do.

When NL became available, I was intrigued by it, especially since that's all they show on TV poker shows. I've played in a lot of NL tourneys online and live, but cannot get comfortable playing NL ring games. I think it's purely a matter of experience. I just haven't invested enough hours reading the right books (I don't even know what these would be), or plain and simply playing. I tried a little NL last night, after reading this thread, for variety. I was pissed after I played AQo the same way I'd play it in limit, except making pot sized bets. I got a bunch of callers, but the flop was my dream flop, I keep betting only to run into a set. I just don't know what to watch out for, and mistakes are gonna take my whole stack, rather than a few BBs here and there. The learning curve just seems too steep, and I'm happy just playing limit for now.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hand you will probably lose most money with in NL is AQ because of the reverse implied odds. I won't even call a raise with it unless I have a good read on the raiser's choice of raising hands in his current position. However, I might call with something like 76s if the raise isn't too large and the money is deep. With position you could also reraise in NL with perhaps a pair of 9s because of the massive power of position in NL if he calls.

The problem with AQ is that you will win small pots against weaker aces and lose big pots against AK, 2P or sets. If a lot of money goes in and you have one pair with AQ, you aren't winning and its time to get out unless you have a read on your opponents bluffing strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. This is backed up by my PT stats. Have lost more with AQo than any other hand it seems.

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

AQ has to be played more carefully in NL, but it is still a strong hand. You certainly shouldn't be losing money with it.

[beernutz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

There is $100 in the pot, and on the turn it is heads up. We have the best hand, our opponent is on a flush draw that will come in less than 20% of the time. If the hand goes to showdown with no further betting, our EV is $80, opponent's is $20.

We bet $10. Opponent is getting 11:1 odds on his call. He only needs roughly 4:1, so he calls. As he should. Does this mean our bet is wrong? NO! We're still winning this 80% of the time. That means of the $20 that just went into the pot (our bet and his call), $16 of it belongs to us. The call is +EV for the flush draw because of the size of the pot, but it's MORE +EV for us.

Also, let's say you put your opponent on a flush draw in that same pot. We bet $10, he calls. The third of a suit comes on the river. We check, he bets $10. We are getting 13:1 to call. That means that we only have to have the best hand less than 8% of the time for the call to be +EV. Can you say with 92% certainty that he was on a flush draw? But in no-limit, he can bluff you off the pot much more easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG! I am starting to understand why some people like limit if this is how they think.

$100 in the pot. If you bet $10 in the turn and he calls, then 20% of the time he will lose $10 and 80% of the time he will win $120. On average his call has a +EV of $16 (120 - 4x10)/5. Therefore you have negative EV. I hope you don't think you both have +EV.

I agree that in limit you still have to bet because even bad odds are better than infinite odds. You are effectively reducing the size of your negative EV. However, in NL, you can control the bet and give yourself a +EV situation regardless of the drawing player's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

...are... are you serious? A little piece of me just died inside reading this.

There's $100 in the pot. He has a flush draw, which means he will LOSE 80% of the time. Not win. WE are making the $16 on the bet and call.

Yes, two people can have positive EV. Because of money already in the pot.

Just... wow. Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can people really be this dim? Yes, you get $10 if he calls and doesn't make his draw but you lose $110 if he does make it. I can see that a career in professional poker was a +EV move if people are really this bad at math.

OK, last time - with all the math

100 in the pot plus 10 from you

If he folds, you get $110 on average

If he calls, you get 120 80% of the time and nothing 20% of the time. Therefore on average you get (120x4)/5 = $96

Therefore, if he calls, you lose $14.

How can this not be any clearer???

Please explain, with the supporting math rather than the usual, 'just because it is', how you gain money if he calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know you throw around a lot of insults for someone who doesn't seem to know WTF they are talking about.

With $100 in the pot, a better has +ev of $110 if opponent folds to his $10 bet.
On the other hand, better has a +ev of $96 if opponent calls his $10 bet. He/she has a positive +ev either way, expected value doesn't become a negative if the call is made; the better just has a lower +ev he is called.

Caller's ev on a fold is 0.
Caller, on the other hand, wins $120 20% of the time and $0 the other 80% for a +ev ON THAT CALL of $24.

96:24, the ratio of expected values, is the odds of the caller hitting his draw (4:1).

[Fuchida]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

There is $100 in the pot, and on the turn it is heads up. We have the best hand, our opponent is on a flush draw that will come in less than 20% of the time. If the hand goes to showdown with no further betting, our EV is $80, opponent's is $20.

We bet $10. Opponent is getting 11:1 odds on his call. He only needs roughly 4:1, so he calls. As he should. Does this mean our bet is wrong? NO! We're still winning this 80% of the time. That means of the $20 that just went into the pot (our bet and his call), $16 of it belongs to us. The call is +EV for the flush draw because of the size of the pot, but it's MORE +EV for us.

Also, let's say you put your opponent on a flush draw in that same pot. We bet $10, he calls. The third of a suit comes on the river. We check, he bets $10. We are getting 13:1 to call. That means that we only have to have the best hand less than 8% of the time for the call to be +EV. Can you say with 92% certainty that he was on a flush draw? But in no-limit, he can bluff you off the pot much more easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG! I am starting to understand why some people like limit if this is how they think.

$100 in the pot. If you bet $10 in the turn and he calls, then 20% of the time he will lose $10 and 80% of the time he will win $120. On average his call has a +EV of $16 (120 - 4x10)/5. Therefore you have negative EV. I hope you don't think you both have +EV.

I agree that in limit you still have to bet because even bad odds are better than infinite odds. You are effectively reducing the size of your negative EV. However, in NL, you can control the bet and give yourself a +EV situation regardless of the drawing player's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

...are... are you serious? A little piece of me just died inside reading this.

There's $100 in the pot. He has a flush draw, which means he will LOSE 80% of the time. Not win. WE are making the $16 on the bet and call.

Yes, two people can have positive EV. Because of money already in the pot.

Just... wow. Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can people really be this dim? Yes, you get $10 if he calls and doesn't make his draw but you lose $110 if he does make it. I can see that a career in professional poker was a +EV move if people are really this bad at math.

OK, last time - with all the math

100 in the pot plus 10 from you

If he folds, you get $110 on average

If he calls, you get 120 80% of the time and nothing 20% of the time. Therefore on average you get (120x4)/5 = $96

Therefore, if he calls, you lose $14.

How can this not be any clearer???

Please explain, with the supporting math rather than the usual, 'just because it is', how you gain money if he calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know you throw around a lot of insults for someone who doesn't seem to know WTF they are talking about.

With $100 in the pot, a better has +ev of $110 if opponent folds to his $10 bet.
On the other hand, better has a +ev of $96 if opponent calls his $10 bet. He/she has a positive +ev either way, expected value doesn't become a negative if the call is made; the better just has a lower +ev he is called.

Caller's ev on a fold is 0.
Caller, on the other hand, wins $120 20% of the time and $0 the other 80% for a +ev ON THAT CALL of $24.

96:24, the ratio of expected values, is the odds of the caller hitting his draw (4:1).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may find we are violently agreeing. The person I was originally replying to stated that he wanted a call because he would gain from that call. I am trying to point out that you don't want a call. Yes, overall he still has +EV whatever happens but he has negative EV on that call. If the call happens, he will make less on average them if the call doesn't happen. Therefore he doesn't want a call and the call itself is -EV for the made hand. There is no +EV on the call for the made hand.

As you said yourself, a call makes the overall EV less than no call so how can that mean anything but that the call itself is -EV for the made hand?

Lets try a simple question instead. When you make that bet, do you want a call or not?

[JKDStudent]

[ QUOTE ]
Can people really be this dim? Yes, you get $10 if he calls and doesn't make his draw but you lose $110 if he does make it. I can see that a career in professional poker was a +EV move if people are really this bad at math.

OK, last time - with all the math

100 in the pot plus 10 from you

If he folds, you get $110 on average

If he calls, you get 120 80% of the time and nothing 20% of the time. Therefore on average you get (120x4)/5 = $96

Therefore, if he calls, you lose $14.

How can this not be any clearer???

Please explain, with the supporting math rather than the usual, 'just because it is', how you gain money if he calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

$100 in the pot, you win 80% of the time. We're going to make the following assumptions:

1) He calls every time.
2) If the third heart comes, you will check, he will bet, you will call, because he MAY be bluffing. However, for the purposes of simplified calculuations, he has the flush every single time (which illustrates that even with this worst-case scenario, our bet STILL has positive EV)
3) The third heart will come 20% of the time (it will actually happen slightly less, but 20% is fine for this example)
4) He will fold when the third heart doesn't come.

Not betting:
$100*.8 - $10*.2 = $78 EV. (The $10*.2 means we call his river bet)

Betting:
$120*.8 - $20*.2 = $92 EV

I never said that folding isn't MORE +EV for us. Of course it is. But betting is in NO WAY -EV. Sure, it's a reduction from the absolute best-case scenario, which is him folding, but that's not how EV is determined to be positive or negative. Positive means that you gain money from a decision, negative means that you lose money. Negative does NOT mean that it's not as good as an alternative.

Can people really be this dim? I can see that playing poker is a +EV move if people are this bad at math.

Love,
Kevin

[Fuchida]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can people really be this dim? Yes, you get $10 if he calls and doesn't make his draw but you lose $110 if he does make it. I can see that a career in professional poker was a +EV move if people are really this bad at math.

OK, last time - with all the math

100 in the pot plus 10 from you

If he folds, you get $110 on average

If he calls, you get 120 80% of the time and nothing 20% of the time. Therefore on average you get (120x4)/5 = $96

Therefore, if he calls, you lose $14.

How can this not be any clearer???

Please explain, with the supporting math rather than the usual, 'just because it is', how you gain money if he calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

$100 in the pot, you win 80% of the time. We're going to make the following assumptions:

1) He calls every time.
2) If the third heart comes, you will check, he will bet, you will call, because he MAY be bluffing. However, for the purposes of simplified calculuations, he has the flush every single time (which illustrates that even with this worst-case scenario, our bet STILL has positive EV)
3) The third heart will come 20% of the time (it will actually happen slightly less, but 20% is fine for this example)
4) He will fold when the third heart doesn't come.

Not betting:
$100*.8 - $10*.2 = $78 EV. (The $10*.2 means we call his river bet)

Betting:
$120*.8 - $20*.2 = $92 EV

I never said that folding isn't MORE +EV for us. Of course it is. But betting is in NO WAY -EV. Sure, it's a reduction from the absolute best-case scenario, which is him folding, but that's not how EV is determined to be positive or negative. Positive means that you gain money from a decision, negative means that you lose money. Negative does NOT mean that it's not as good as an alternative.

Can people really be this dim? I can see that playing poker is a +EV move if people are this bad at math.

Love,
Kevin

[/ QUOTE ]

Please take the time to read and digest before replying

Not sure what you were replying to but it wasn't the above. Go back and trying reading my posts instead of replying to what you assume I was saying.

The original poster to whom I was replying stated that he wanted a call because it improved his EV over not being called. I pointed out that being called reduced his EV - i.e. his EV FOR THE CALL was negative. Everyone seems to be jumped in and replying to a claim I never made which is why I called them (and you it would seem) dim.

This was all due to a previous post I made stating that in NL as opposed to limit you could bet an amount which would make an EV for the call positive for you and negative for him and if he folded you were no worse off. In limit with its major strategy decision of bet or don't bet you have no choice. You are stuck with having to bet to give him good odds instead of infinite odds but if he calls, he reduces the amount you will win on average. In NL, you can show a little more intelligence in your betting.

I have now explained this same thing four times and the limit players seem to be struggling to get it so I am going to give up. I shouldn't have got dragged in in the first place because its pointless trying to argue with someone who doesn't even read your posts before replying.

You believe what ever you want (including that I must be terrible at poker). If you believe limit is the more skillful form despite pretty much every professional player skilled in both forms disagreeing with you then go ahead.

I will exit the discussion by quoting from an article by Bob Ciaffone

"Which form of poker has the greater skill factor; limit poker or big bet poker. Once in a great while you will come across an article in a a poker publication - always written by a limit player - that would have you believe limit play is the more demanding form on skill and talent. According to the best players in the world at both forms, big-bet poker has a far greater element of skill. Lets listen to a couple of knowledgeable people,

Johnny Chan has won the title of World Champion two years in a row. That competition is of course held at no-limit holdem, the form of poker two-time World Champion Doyle Brunson characterises as the "Cadillac of Poker Games". Johnny Chan has also demonstrated sufficient qualities - by winning several million dollars - to be considered an authority on limit play as well. I talked to Johnny about comparing the skill factor between big-bet and limit play. Here is Johnny's asnwer to my question of whether he thought he had a bigger overlay (against the same quality of opponents) at limit holdem or no-limit holdem. "There is a lot of luck at limit holdem; it is almost a hand holding contest. There is no gamble to no-limit holdem." Translating from Chinese. this means there is no gamble to NL Holdem when he plays it. His overlay at that poker form is so great that he wins nearly every session.
I also asked 1986 World Champion Berry Johnston to contrats limit poker with big bet poker. Berry is superb at both forms. Berry said "there is more play by far to pot limit holdem than limit holdem."

Also bear in mind that limit holdem is only played in the US. In Europe it doesn't exist in cash games. It was apparently designed by casinos to keep the weaker players in the game because at NL they get busted far more quickly.

I know this will not change the mind of anyone who really believes limit is somehow more challenging but try and find anyone who is very successful at both forms who shares your view.

Flame away because I refuse to let this pointless exercise consume any more of my time.