NL Cash Games

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]

Can you expand on this a bit? I feel I am close to an epiphany in understanding this, but not quite [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Like the OP, I've always stayed away from Limit because I couldn't manipulate the pot odds and make it wrong for my opponent to call.


[/ QUOTE ]

Think of it the other way, a bit. If you are playing hands in good position with good equity, you don't want to discourage calls - you want to encourage them. Whenever someone calls a bet or bets into when you have an equity edge, you win. That's betting for value, and it's very important in limit poker.

Yes, it's very hard to give your opponents bad pot odds (especially in the loose games we see generally), so you have to try to get them at an equity disadvantage instead.

[ QUOTE ]

To a newbie like me, on the surface, limit seems like a game that's easy to get drawn-out on. Is limit that cut & dry, in that, if I don't have better pot-odds than odds of making my hand, I should fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not all about pot odds in limit poker. Remember implied odds. While implied odds are important in NL, they are also important in limit and need to be accounted for when deciding to play on in a hand.

Did that answer the question?

Regards,

T

[nmt09]

[ QUOTE ]
Even as a noob, this is all I really need to read to know that your head is in entirely the wrong place. I will leave it to my betters to explain exactly why.

Good luck.

You are going to need it.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a little unfair, just because I don't like playing limit games hardly means I'm going to be a bad player - as you seem to imply.

In the lower level games I've played [up to 0.50/1] people will call with almost any hand and half the table will see you to the river. Now I understand I could be holding a hand with good odds of winning compared to their holding but it seems all too easy for people to draw out on you and there is no way of fighting this off.

I'm sure that isn't the case at the higher limits but I'm hardly going to risk that kind of money as a beginner.

The way they look at it is, "well I've put x amount in already and it only costs me another x to call"

I understand this is a loosing strategy but it doesn't seem to bother them...

It seems that the whole strategy for limit is go in with the best and drop it if you think you're beat. It totally misses the betting strategy you have to contend with in NL.

Again I enjoy playing NL and if I'm planning on spending a huge amount of time studying and playing it might as well be in a game I like.

I'm certainly not trying to be a smart arse I'm just trying to understand why so many people are screaming "Limit"? If someone can point to a reason why a beginner should never start with NL if that's the game they want to master fair enough but I can't see a reason why someone couldn't be a great NL player having never spent time on limit?

From NL Hold'em I'd like to take a shot at PL Omaha.

Again thanks all for the great discussion it all helps me figure out where I'm at and what I sound be doing.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone can point to a reason why a beginner should never start with NL if that's the game they want to master fair enough but I can't see a reason why someone couldn't be a great NL player having never spent time on limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

My strong opinion is that there is no such reason. In other words, play NLHE if that's what you want to learn. Just make sure you're adequately bankrolled. You'll need more than the proverbial 20 buy-ins -- you're learning, hence not yet a winning player, don't forget! And play the very very small micros until you know that you're both able and adequately bankrolled to move up.

You can buy into the Pacific $.05-.10 blinds with $1, although that's only 10 big blinds -- and easily beat this game by waiting for TT, AK or better and pushing all-in. There are smaller-blind games which would be even better for your bankroll that Student can point you to; I don't know if the play is as bad there as on Pacific.

[Pov]

I've only skimmed this thread, but I would like to chime in about a perceived background murmur that somehow no-limit is more difficult than limit. I do not believe this to be true at all. In fact, I would say limit is more skillful of a game. I would, however, agree that no-limit is more dangerous. What I'm trying to say is that it's easier to make good decisions at no-limit than it is at limit, but those decisions are frequently much more important.

Why do I say this? Well, exactly because of the reasons cited by some that they prefer no-limit. If you don't want a flush draw to stick around, you just bet an amount that makes it incorrect for them to draw. But in a limit game you must be much more tricky. Perhaps you can check-raise or check the flop to set up a big bet or raise on the turn. Maybe you use another aggressive player to set up a two or three-bet scenario. The point being, it's much more difficult to set these types of plays up. The biggest difference is when they draw incorrectly in limit it may cost them a few bb's whereas in no-limit you can make it cost them many bb's if they are bad enough players. This ability to gain ridiculous amounts from bad players is what makes no-limit a considerably easier game at the low limits in my opinion. It also makes it easier to lose all your money if you are one of these bad players still learning.

So in summary for new players, limit is probably a safer place to start because you'll lose more slowly than you would in no-limit while you're still a losing player. But once you're a winning player, I think you'll find no-limit to be an easier game - at least at the low limits while lots of players are very bad.

[ QUOTE ]

Did that answer the question?

[/ QUOTE ]

SheridanCat, thanks so much for the explanation. Wow. I totally see what you're saying - don't know why I didn't pick up on this earlier from all the books I've read. I've read HOH1 and HOH2 twice already because I'm so focused on NL right now. I think I'm going to read Miller's GSIH and SSHE (again). Thank you!

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I've only skimmed this thread, but I would like to chime in about a perceived background murmur that somehow no-limit is more difficult than limit. I do not believe this to be true at all. In fact, I would say limit is more skillful of a game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I didn't want to out-and-out say it, but I agree with this. Not that there's anything wrong with NL. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Regards,

T

[TaoTe]

An area that seperates NL from LHE is psychologically. The good analogy about NL and war above is a great one. To quote the movie Patton, "I couldn't stand the shelling, sir," a soldier says to General Patton in the hospital wing. Bad suckouts will happen in any form of poker. Luck is the driving edge of poker. Without there would be no long term losers; they'd figure out they weren't good enoug and quit. The reason why I rarely play NL is because of my nerves. I feel fine playing a limit game where a bad beat is going to cost only a few bb and not my entire buy-in. Tournaments are a different story but again I rarely play them. When I do it's normally a live game because that's the only one around (until the new casino opens tables!!!!) and people want to play NL and they want to play NL tournaments like on TV. I'm usually very nervous and even though I know I'm a better player than most, I do poorly. I guess I can't stand the shelling.

To the OP (original poster): You've got a lot to learn, my son. Why did you ask a question on this board if you were only going to argue with the responses. It seems as though you want to play NL Hold'em and you're going to regarless of the advice given against it. Why ask any questions at all? Any form of poker can seem about as fun as watching paint dry especially when playing it correctly, because you're folding, folding, folding, lose a pot, fold, win a pot, fold, fold, fold, repeat.

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
I enjoy playing NL and if I'm planning on spending a huge amount of time studying and playing it might as well be in a game I like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Play what you like. It's a game; it should be fun.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm certainly not trying to be a smart arse I'm just trying to understand why so many people are screaming "Limit"? If someone can point to a reason why a beginner should never start with NL if that's the game they want to master fair enough but I can't see a reason why someone couldn't be a great NL player having never spent time on limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't think of a good reason. You should play what you are interested in and have the aptitude for.

You can certainly learn things playing limit hold'em that are applicable to no limit, but there is no reason why you can't learn the same things playing no limit from the start (plus you won't have to unlearn some limit specific things that can get you in trouble in no limit).

[Cooker]

I agree with Hank_Scorpio specifically because you seem to suggest that you think limit is a crap shoot or something. It definitely is not a crap shoot and can easily be beaten. I play a fair bit of both limit and NL and am a pretty decent winner at both just to let you know where I am coming from (about 4BB/100 in limit over my last 10000 hands and about 10BB/100 in NL over my last 5000 hands and I know they are small samples).

There is plenty of skill in both games and plenty of profit to be had as well. Still, it is much easier on the bankroll to be a starting limit player than a starting NL player. Also, imagine trapping someone for all their chips with a big hand only to get sucked out on in the worst way possible for all yours. If you think bad beats are tough in limit try taking a few in NL.

As for material, read the bit in Getting Started in Holdem (this will at least teach you what you don't know you don't know before you get started), the NL cash game bit in Super System, and the seciton on NL in Ciaffone's Pot-limit and No-limit poker (the whole book is good, but if you want to focus on holdem start there). The material in the latter 2 books is much more advanced and I would hold back on some of the semi-bluffing suggestions they make. At the low limit NLHE tables, few people can fold TPWK so moving in on flush or open-ended straight draws will probably be costly since so much of the value of this move comes from getting better hands to fold.

[nmt09]

[ QUOTE ]
You've got a lot to learn, my son. Why did you ask a question on this board if you were only going to argue with the responses. It seems as though you want to play NL Hold'em and you're going to regardless of the advice given against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

TaoTe if you read my post you'll see that I didn't ask a question about whether I should play limit or no limit - all I asked was what books I should read for nl cash games.

I don't think I'm ignoring the responses at all I'm simply more interested in NL and wanted some advice on what books would help my game - given that I haven't seen any specific to NL cash games.

I can see peoples points and I probably don't understand enough about limit at this stage but I can always come back to it after learning NL.

On a happier not I took down my biggest/best win so far last night over on empire - 3rd place in a multi table.

So far I haven't spent a single penny playing poker all of my initial money came from freerolls and once I had enough to play paid games I did. It's hardly a big thing when you consider the money being talked about here on 2+2 but I'm chuffed to bits...