Why is limit HE more popular than no-limit?

[Happy Hour]

Maybe a dumb question, but I know very little about NL.

Why is limit more popular? It seems most pros and semi-pros here play limit HE. There seem to be more limit games available than NL and more books are written about limit.

But browsing the NL forums, I keep seeing things like these:

- In NL, you have a greater edge against bad players.
- NL takes less of a bankroll to play at equivalent stakes.
- Bad streaks don't last as long in NL.

It seems, if these things are true, then it would be better to play NL if you are looking for a steady source of income from HE. And if you are playing just for fun, NL seems like it would be more fun also.

So how come more people play limit?

[Seether]

[ QUOTE ]
In NL, you have a greater edge against bad players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the answer to your question. Bad players go broke faster and normally have fewer winning sessions in nl compared to limit. 1 bad decision in nl= their enture buy in, 1 bad decision in limit is just an extra bet.

[LImitPlayer]

Multitabling is a lot easier playing limit.

[Rah]

A few reasons:

* Limit is much more multitabling friendly.
* Fish goes broke faster in NL. In limit you keep milking em.
* Finesse vs. macho.

Personally, I just hate when people push and I hold two pair or TPTK.

[balkii]

there is more literature (2+2 especially) on limit. so its easier to pick up without going bust a few times.

[MicroBob]

correct.

this is mason's argument basically too.
that limit hold-em is a good enough balance in the variation.

the lucky fish win enough to keep them coming back, and the expert players have enough of a long-run edge to make it surviveable.


if it was entirely skill-based with NO variation (like if I played Garry Kasparov in chess) then it wouldn't work as well for income...because the skill-ful would ALWAYS win and the fish would just bust-out too darn fast.


I'm not sure whether I totally agree with the argument or not...but I certainly understand it and I also acknowledge that I haven't been around for NEARLY as long as Mason nor am I nearly as good or even have close to the understanding of the differences and similarities in the games that he does.


Obviously things are changing in the NL scene these days partly because of the increasing popularity due to TV coverage.

But Mason still seems to have similar concerns regarding the long-term prospects for NL...especially those NL games with a no-cap buy-in where the fish can just get broke too darned fast.

[Isura]

It is more fun.

[PokerCat69]

NL is more stressful.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]

Why is limit more popular?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is, and I don't think it's close. I think it just seems that way on 2+2 b/c of 1) the forums you read and 2) the reasons other players have mentioned. There is more written about it and it's easier to multitable, so its attractive to the 2+2 audience, who want to seriously study the game and make money from it.

Try getting a soft, mid-size limit game in NYC though, compared to an equivalent size NL game....

[john kane]

the answer is that most people arent good enough at NL yet they are at limit as limit is a far easier game to become a consistent winner (obviously given variance).
at limit you almost always know the correct move - its easy at the lower limits (till 10-20 id say). you just play 4-6 tables and slowly win. yes you have bad sessions, but thats down to variance, not bad play, unless you arent a good enough player.

NL is a lot harder to be a successful player, you need far more experience and judgement to be a consistently winning player.

personally i find it amazing how many people play online limit. ive been a winner at both limit and NL and id always prefer to multitable NL than limit, its simply far less variance and far greater winrate. I play 4 ring NL tables and 1 omaha ring table (great table to have as an extra, just flick back and only play the nuts, easy money over time)

i dont get this idea of fish losing their money faster in NL being a downside?? so rather than trying to extract their money over a course of time, you can take their money a lot faster....i know which i prefer to choose, plus some of the fish keep pumping in another buy in and a few of us on the table are each hoping it'll be us to take down the ineveitable big pot the fish will very likely lose.

i can imagine there being a lot of limit players who have learnt the game and been successful, yet if they try NL they have an idea but dont understand the finer, crucial aspects of the game. they can hold their own by dont understand the concept of if you show strength, and someone shows strength back (ie. min raise or larger raise), then they probably have you beat, and you fold the hand, rather than thinking 'oh, he's trying to bluff me' or 'but i have TPTK, i have a chance of winning the pot'. also, its a pretty simply trail of thought that dont try to win big pots with medium hands, there's a reason a lot of money is in the pot, yet you dont have a great hand, because the other guy is milking you. i read 'unlucky' hands where people were all in with the K high flush and the guy has the ace high - they are still some supposedly 'sound' players who would be all in with K high flush (only time i would be is if i have seen the opponent be all in without the nuts).
also there arent a number of books telling you how to play every type of hand vs every type of opponent, and so it relies more on personal skill and experience rather than reading a book.