Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Beginners Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-26-2005, 10:44 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limit vs. No Limit?

Greetings.

I've been playing limit play money games for a few months now. I've also been reading the various books on Limit (WLLH, SSH, ect.).

Then I read this where the second poster recommended against Limit because he felt NL was easier to learn, had less variance and because there would be an UNlearning curve when you made the move from limit to, in his words, "real poker."

Now, leaving the "real poker" comment aside, is there any data from respectable sources on the variance of limit vs. NL?

I'd also like comments regarding ease of learning, but frankly I find poker theory easy (it's the aplication that's hard [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-27-2005, 12:39 AM
RustyCJ RustyCJ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 32
Default Re: Limit vs. No Limit?

I have about 50k hands worth of limit play under my belt and only about 15 Sit'N'Go's played. I've also played some $25 NL.

When I first read your post I immediately thought of Sklansky's book "Tournament Poker for AP" - In the intro, on pages 5 and 7, he says this book is intended for people who "know how to play poker well" and "have a good understanding of standard ring game poker".

I know there are people who start out playing tourneys and never look back.

I guess my thought is that to be the best poker player I can be, I need to learn limit poker, get an understanding of the value of each hand and how it plays, build a roll and proceed from there.

I have also played some .5/1 and 1/2 6 max limit games, they are much more aggressive and there is lots to be learned in 6 max play and plenty of money to be made.

For me, I'm starting with limit play and I'll play tourneys later on.

I think it also depends on your style and what suits you best.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-27-2005, 05:12 AM
manpower manpower is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12
Default Re: Limit vs. No Limit?

I've heard a few arguments that you'll become a better player by learning limit first, because you'll be forced to develope a more in-depth understanding of odds, espesially preflop odds.

For low limit games, variance / earn is almost certainly lower for most profitable players.

Regarding making quick profits quickly, i'd say the 25NL is the place to start.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-27-2005, 10:31 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Limit vs. No Limit?

This is so obvious that you'll probably throw boogers at the screen in an attempt to knock me off my chair, but here goes. One of the main positives of limit play for a newby (like myself) is that you can get away with the occassional bad decision without going broke. In my experience, I feel I play solid poker in the micro games, but there's always a hand somewhere along the line where my inexperience leads me to either make a horrible play, or a bad read, each making me feel that an all-in type move is warranted. In NL, I'd be done. In limit, it hurts, but I'm still playing. Playing solid on the majority of remaining hands allows me to break even, or show a profit. Either way I still have a bankroll. I like to play limit in ring games, and work on my NL game in toruneys that have small buy-ins. Remember, I suck, so don't listen to me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-27-2005, 11:32 AM
SheridanCat SheridanCat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 86
Default Re: Limit vs. No Limit?

This question always interests me because, until about 3-4 years ago, it didn't exist. The reason being that outside of tournaments there were really no no-limit hold'em games available live and very few online. It was assumed that people would learn limit hold'em first.

[ QUOTE ]

Then I read this where the second poster recommended against Limit because he felt NL was easier to learn, had less variance and because there would be an UNlearning curve when you made the move from limit to, in his words, "real poker."


[/ QUOTE ]

The NL vs limit snobbery has really got me puzzled. I think a lot of this comes from people who don't really understand either game. They think that since you can lose your entire stack in NL, it is somehow a "manly" game. I play both limit and no-limit and you definitely see this at the tables as well - usually from the weak players. These players tend to whine about limit suckouts and being unable to protect your hand. The funny thing is, they don't really understand what it means to "protect your hand"; they think it means shoving all your chips in to induce folds. It's terribly uninformed.

I do agree that NL is an easier game - if you are patient and skilled. Those traits will also make it a game with lower variance. That said, NL allows you to level the playing field some by removing the skill advantage other players might have. Read Ed Miller's Getting Started In Hold'em for advice on how to play beginning no-limit.

Since I learned limit hold'em before NL, and since there is much more study material available, I usually recommend limit hold'em for those just getting started. I tend to think the decisions in limit are more difficult and interesting, so that's my primary game.

[ QUOTE ]

Now, leaving the "real poker" comment aside, is there any data from respectable sources on the variance of limit vs. NL?


[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't leave the comment aside. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As for specific posts about variance differences, I don't have them handy. I think that for the skilled player, the variance will be lower. However, variance isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Good luck,

T
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-27-2005, 04:59 PM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Limit vs. No Limit?

[ QUOTE ]
Then I read this where the second poster recommended against Limit because he felt NL was easier to learn, had less variance and because there would be an UNlearning curve when you made the move from limit to, in his words, "real poker."

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you misread that post. He didn't say limit wasn't real poker. He said (NL) tournament poker isn't real poker because the stacks are shallow, eliminating most post-flop play.

[ QUOTE ]

Now, leaving the "real poker" comment aside, is there any data from respectable sources on the variance of limit vs. NL?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

People mean different things by variance. For all of the common usages of the term, there are data available.

If you want PokerTracker data, people post them in the relevant small stakes forums relatively frequently. My SD/100 in SSNL games ranges from 30 PTBB/100 to 55 PTBB/100, depending on whether I buy in short or deep, and how long I stay at the table when I have several buy-ins. In small stakes limit games, my SD ranges from 18 to 22 BB/100. This is a bit high, but I have an aggressive style (which gets people to play back at me with mediocre hands) and I love to tackle maniacs.

More useful might be the ratio between SD and win rate, or even the bankroll needed, which is proportionate to SD^2/WR.

NL 25 players may be able to sustain higher win rates, but at NL 100, 10 PTBB (20 big blinds/100) is a good rate. The analogous rate for $3-$6 limit may be 2-3 BB/100.


[ QUOTE ]

I'd also like comments regarding ease of learning,

[/ QUOTE ]
More hands get shown down in limit, which makes it much easier to learn. Also, preflop play is more important in limit, and there are good books on limit.

In NL, the preparation for a low probability critical hand is important, and may be hidden for hours. A solid winning player (who defends with 87s) and a losing player (who defends with K8s) may have the same results in small and medium pots, but the expert might win 3/4 of the huge pots instead of 1/4. In limit, your win rate is determined by your performance on typical hands, but in NL you have to analyze the rare huge pots and potentially huge pots where hands are not shown.

On the other hand, because the hourly win rate in NL is so much higher compared with the hourly standard deviation than in limit, you get more rapid feedback in NL. You can play well in limit, and lose for days. That much more rarely happens in NL.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-27-2005, 10:39 PM
AKQJ10 AKQJ10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 184
Default Re: Limit vs. No Limit?

[ QUOTE ]
The NL vs limit snobbery has really got me puzzled. I think a lot of this comes from people who don't really understand either game. They think that since you can lose your entire stack in NL, it is somehow a "manly" game. I play both limit and no-limit and you definitely see this at the tables as well - usually from the weak players. These players tend to whine about limit suckouts and being unable to protect your hand. The funny thing is, they don't really understand what it means to "protect your hand"; they think it means shoving all your chips in to induce folds. It's terribly uninformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo. Well stated (notwithstanding the apparent confusion over the original citation).

FWIW I've tried to catalogue some of these "pros and cons" here, which might better be moved here. As always feel free to add your own content.

Incidentally, I'm feeling that i'm having some setbacks learning NLHE, mostly because one or two impulsive actions based on a false "read" can undo an hour of patient tight play. But learning to act less impulsively and to demand a sound rationale for my actions should help me become better at both limit and big-bet poker.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-28-2005, 04:41 AM
Allinlife Allinlife is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 154
Default Re: Limit vs. No Limit?

"Crushing" winrate
in limit: 4ptbb/100 hands
in NL: 10ptbb+/100 hands
I think this higher winrate cap is the proof of NL having less variance.

NL is easier game because it is easier to manipulate pot odds, and cause worse players to make big mistakes and get the worst of it, where as in limit, it is hard to directly charge the worse players as hard since a bet in limit represents much smaller proportion of the pot...especially in multiway pots (10:1+ pot odd being common).

p.s)refer to pzhon's explanation on the 'real poker' comment [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.