Why do you play no-limit? Why do you play limit?

[wdeadwyler]

[ QUOTE ]
Limit unless very short handed is checkers, where NL is chess.
You can be a lot more creative with NL and genearally the cards don't even matter.
NL is a lot more fun, more challenging, has less variance,is less mechanical and the optimal way to go in the long run unless you are a hu limit master.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limit actually is the more complicated of the two games, as you are faced with many more decisions each betting round.

That being said, I play no-limit, because I love the feeling of stacking a donkey. Limit play can be a bit boring to me at times and I like the creativity you can utilize in NL games.

[Schwartzy61]

I choose limit cash games because, for me, it is hard to call All-Ins or push All-in without the nuts. I assume this will lead to a lower EV from No Limit than I achieve in Limit.

In the end it's a big mental thing that keeps me playing limit. Maybe after I get my limit game somewhere respectable I'll start to dabble in the No Limit cash games.

I started only as a NL player, tried to play limit for bonus whoring, but it just isn't me. I've read SSHE and all, but limit is just frusturing and boring (IMO,I know it suites many others well). That being said, I am still a winning limit player, just not as much as what is considered good. Playing NL is fun, limit on the other hand, I have to force myself to open up the tables because that bonus is only 4 boring hours away....

Edit: I think once you start with one, it is really hard to go over to the other, at least for the majority of people.

[SteveL91]

I primarily play limit hold 'em because I'm simply not comfortable playing no-limit. Also, for whatever reason, I find no-limit rather boring. At some point, I'll make an attempt to seriously learn no-limit; I suspect a lot of my discomfort stems from the fact that I simply don't know how to properly play the game. In the mean time, I play pot-limit omaha when I feel like playing big bet poker. Oddly enough, I'm fairly comfortable playing PLO, but I can't sit at a NLHE table for much more than a few orbits.

It looks like we have the same problem in opposite games. Good luck to you in NL [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[gabbahh]

So to summarize:
According to some limit is more boring
According to others no limit is more boring
Some consider limit to be more difficult
Others auto play 8 limit tables
Some say limit has the highest variance
Others claim this for no limit

As far as I can tell: most play the game which suits them best and think the other game (being limit or no limit) is "worse".

Has anyone of you looked at the mathematical definition of variance? If so, can you still claim that limit has higher variance? Because I think it is not possible for a limit (fixed sized bets) betting game to have higher variance than the same mathematical game with variable bet sizes.

A 300 bb downswing in limit is pretty rare for a good player, and will take a very long time to overcome. In no limit a 300 bb "downswing" can occur in a few hands. For example getting your entire stack all in pre flop with AA and lose to JQ or crap. The same goes for upswings.
So following this line of thought combined with the formula for variance, I'd say that no limit is more swingier.

Please prove me wrong.

[JTMoney42]

Limit!

I get to value bet ace high!