A hypothetical situation

[ZeeJustin]

Take 2 players. Their skill level isn't all that relevant, but let's just say they are both of equal skill, and are good enough to beat the higher games on party (15/30 LHE and 5/10 NL) but not really anyhting bigger than that. They are good solid aggressive winning players.

These two players are playing heads up, except one is confined to the rules of pot limit, while the other is playing limit holdem.

Let's say they're playing with $5 and $10 blinds. On the flop, the LHE player can only bet $10. The other player can bet or raise any amount he would be allowed to in pot limit.

If the pot limit player bets, and the limit player wants to raise, he must make the minimum raise.

How significant would the pot limit player's edge be?

[bobdibble]

Huge.

[Justin A]

Enormous. The pot limit guy can control the size of the pot at all times.

[AaronBrown]

I'm not sure I agree. The ability to make a raise the size of the pot is occasionally useful when you have the edge but your opponent has enough pot odds to call a limit bet. But that doesn't happen in most hands and the loss to your opponent from having to fold isn't huge.

Obviously with two evenly matched players, even a slight edge could make the difference. But I would rather have a $600 stake and the limit than a $400 stake and pot-limit; that's only a 10% edge, not my idea of huge.

[willthethrill]

The pot limit player would have a huge advantage. The pot limit player would be able to bluff so much better because he could raise so much more than the limit player. The limit player could rarely buy a pot. Also the limit player wouldnt be able to make moves like a check raise in significant situations. Lastly if a big pot was created, how many chips go into the pot is completely regulated by the pot limit player bc the limit player can only raise 200. The pot limit player would be the aggressor the entire game.

[AaronBrown]

Okay, we got three votes for "huge" and one vote (me) for "important but less than huge." Let's see if we can put a number on it.

There's $1,000 total stake. It will be divided among the two players and they have to play until one or the other has it all. How much money would you take to be the $10 limit player as opposed to the pot limit player? I've already said I'd take $600 and the $10 limit over $400 and the pot limit.

Let's get some votes in, and maybe we can set up a game to see who's right.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
The pot limit player would have a huge advantage. The pot limit player would be able to bluff so much better because he could raise so much more than the limit player. The limit player could rarely buy a pot. Also the limit player wouldnt be able to make moves like a check raise in significant situations. Lastly if a big pot was created, how many chips go into the pot is completely regulated by the pot limit player bc the limit player can only raise 200. The pot limit player would be the aggressor the entire game.

[/ QUOTE ]

why would he be able to bluff with more success? more often maybe, but not more success...remember, they are of even skill. I tend to agree with the 10-15% edge, intuitively.

[Louie Landale]

My Mom would beat Malmuth.

[AaronBrown]

How good is your mom?

[ZeeJustin]

It's a freezout. Blinds are $5 / $10. The limit player bets $10 on the flop and $20 on the turn and river. Each player buys in for $1000.

Before the match, how much money would the pot limit player need to pay the limit player to make it an even proposition?