Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit? - Page 4

gomberg · #31 05-23-2005, 09:46 AM

I'm sure poker would be super popular if they televised those non-boring limit games [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Are you guys insane? in some games I have a 40% VPIP - how is this boring compared to an 18% in limit games. And you can multitable fine at NL with practice (although this takes more relative skill than for limit players). How is it boring to play more hands? How is it boring to risk $1000s on one hand? How is it boring to push in bluff some guy and have him fold because you read him right? I don't get it - please explain why it's boring...

chief444 · #32 05-23-2005, 10:09 AM

Sometimes if I get a little bored playing limit I'll play a little NL online just to mix it up. I usually last about 5-10 rounds and can't take it any more. Online NL is extremely boring IMO. Live, not quite so bad.

Yossarian · #33 05-23-2005, 10:12 AM

What channel do they show these no limit ring games on gomberg? not that i'll be watching.

gomberg · #34 05-23-2005, 10:18 AM

live at the bike - NL much more entertaining than limit

Pokamastah · #35 05-23-2005, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure poker would be super popular if they televised those non-boring limit games [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Are you guys insane? in some games I have a 40% VPIP - how is this boring compared to an 18% in limit games. And you can multitable fine at NL with practice (although this takes more relative skill than for limit players). How is it boring to play more hands? How is it boring to risk $1000s on one hand? How is it boring to push in bluff some guy and have him fold because you read him right? I don't get it - please explain why it's boring...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is one biased crowd we have here. Their best argument seems to be that NL is boring with no explanations why.

pudley4 · #36 05-23-2005, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure poker would be super popular if they televised those non-boring limit games [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Are you guys insane? in some games I have a 40% VPIP - how is this boring compared to an 18% in limit games. And you can multitable fine at NL with practice (although this takes more relative skill than for limit players). How is it boring to play more hands? How is it boring to risk $1000s on one hand? How is it boring to push in bluff some guy and have him fold because you read him right? I don't get it - please explain why it's boring...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is one biased crowd we have here. Their best argument seems to be that NL is boring with no explanations why.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there are tons of reasons why, it's just that no one here cares to rehash this same debate for the 1000th time.

PS To the original quote in this thread - playing for the "OMG I JUST BET $1000 I'M SOO EXCITED" feeling is the first step on the road to trouble.

chief444 · #37 05-23-2005, 12:59 PM

It's slow. You play less. You wait longer. You make far fewer decisions. But at the same time you since reads are so much more critical in NL you really can't (or shouldn't) play as many tables.

And as Jeff said,

[ QUOTE ]
playing for the "OMG I JUST BET $1000 I'M SOO EXCITED" feeling is the first step on the road to trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

gomberg · #38 05-23-2005, 01:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's slow. You play less. You wait longer. You make far fewer decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

well - at least you gave reasons. I have to disagree with the fewer decisions part. I play soooo many more hands in NL than limit that I have far more decisions to make (and usually more important ones than in limit). As far as slowness, a full table plays at 50 / hour instead of 60 / hour for limit ring. Short plays more. So you have a point there.

And it's great fun to be a LAG - you limit tighties should try it sometime.

I feel the same way as you about sit'n'goes actually - they seem boring to me. Limit is ok, I just love NL as it fits my creative personality better and I hated the swings when I played limit primarily.

Matt R. · #39 05-23-2005, 02:11 PM

Good points, and I used to think the same things. I still believe what you say is true for the higher stakes games where play is tighter and quite a bit better on average. I think what has been contributing for my much higher win rate at limit is the looseness and generally bad play at the $2/$4 tables. It seems like players are much less willing even at very low stakes NL to play trash cards preflop and chase their draws when you can make pot sized bets and threaten their stack. You will get occasional players like this, but they're relatively rare compared to the small stakes limit games (but when you do, it sure is fun). I can generally get my big hands payed off by 2 or 3 people even when I'm betting the whole way at a low stakes limit game -- probably because they stand to lose so much less in a given hand, so they'll chase or pay you off to see if they're ahead. As you move up in limits though, the players tend to understand the game a lot better so this huge edge disappears, making the NL game more profitable for the more skilled. I essentially agree with your point of view, except I think the edge at the small stakes limit tables is greater than what you're giving it credit for (and your corresponding edge at equivalent NL stakes isn't as large).

As far as the variance goes, I think my greater expectation in the $2/$4 game may be clouding my results because I don't see so great a downswing. One thing I don't quite understand is how the variance can be greater in a game where you can stand to lose maybe 10 BB on a given hand vs. NL where you can lose several buy-ins going against a big stack with a big stack of your own. Is it because these situations in NL are so rare that these huge multi buy in swings fall out of the range for the standard deviation for variance? I see your argument, but because of this potential in NL it seems at least a little counter-intuitive. Can anyone explain the math behind this?

gomberg · #40 05-23-2005, 02:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see your argument, but because of this potential in NL it seems at least a little counter-intuitive. Can anyone explain the math behind this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done some thinking about this and can't give a great mathematical explanation yet but I believe it has something to do with not getting sucked out on as often, and when you do, you are getting a rediculously high EV per betting round to compensate you. I'd like to see someone post a more analytical response.

It is counter-intuitive but I've played limit for 3 years and NL for almost 2 years. My swings are drastically less in the NL form. Some of the best limit players on this forum have had 400+ BB downswings in limit while at NL a comparable downswing by a good player is very, very rare.