Why choose Limit over No-Limit? - Page 4

RunDownHouse · #31 07-28-2005, 09:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Now...
If you play 6 max NL, and want to make the 8-10 PTBB/100, there is no where else you will have more fun. Stealing pots, value betting second pair, making the big move on a scare card, coming over the top on a semi bluff, stealing blinds with nothing and then having to play the hand, and lastly delayed bluffs; calling a decent bet on the flop, knowing you have no chance of winning a showdown, just to come over the top on the turn, nothing better. NL is a fantastic game. If you don't want it to be boring, dont play it to be boring. Make good tactical moves, using strong applied aggression. dont just nut peddle. Do this, and its an awesome game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So the limit guys just have to get out of the kiddy pool and start making some moves?

Seriously, this is a big-time case of ESPN-itis. NL is not about gambling recklessly.

Rudbaeck · #32 07-28-2005, 09:52 AM

I've played both, but settled on limit. Frankly, on the same bankroll my profit/100 hands is very nearly identical. But I can play 8 tables of limit, while I struggled with even 4 of no limit.

tonybormin · #33 07-28-2005, 10:09 AM

Limit = People who aren't very good at math

jman220 · #34 07-28-2005, 10:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi, I know this forum is pretty Limit oriented in terms of what its members play, but I play NL exclusively and do very well at it. I was wondering however, what the draw is to playing Limit over No Limit for you guys (or even vice-versa)? Is it that Limit is more math/statistic oriented? Too much variance in NL? etc...Thanks guys

Cheers, [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No limit can't last forever, eventually the game's gonna crash because it busts the bad players too damn fast. Limit is long run.

[/ QUOTE ]
In no way is what I'm going to say critical or sarcastic, but can you care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been discussed before in other threads I think, but basically, no limit has been popular before, but that popularity has always waned because it busts out the really terrible players too fast, leaving only the good ones. NL has much less variance than limit. Therefore, a terrible player is less likely to have a big positive upswing at nl then at limit. The mistakes a player makes at limit are small, and add up over time, but they do not cause you to lose your whole buyin in one hand (generally), in NL, you can. This means that limit is far better at giving players the illusion that either, they are beating the game, or, that the game is beatable and they're just running cold. In No Limit, a player is generally faced with his inadequacies faster. Eventually, (as happenned before with the popular NL cash games), the really bad players will stop playing NL, because they will all be busting too fast, leaving only good/not-stupid players playing, making the games not profitable for must of us average TAGs. I still prefer NL, but I continue to work on my limit game as a backup for this eventuality. The popularity of NL on tv has probably artificially made this current NL boom last longer than any other, but if you compare stats in NL games today from a year ago, I think you see a difference in the quality of the games already. They're still good, but not as good.