Cash Games: Limit Vs. No Limit

This is obviously an extension from another thread on this board, but I thought it would be good to have a general discussion, from a beginner's perspective, on these two games.

I have played poker for a long time, but it is really only in the last 4-6 months that I have gotten serious about it, and only about 1 month since I started playing regularly online. My bankroll is tiny ($150) and so right now I am only playing .25/.50 - with the occasional SNG or lucky dollar MTT thrown in there. I also play a live MTT once a week, but there is no money involved (www.redhotpokertour.com).

I believe that it is better for the beginner to start at limit - and here are a few reasons

1) fundamentals - limit is a game that requires you to learn and respect the fundamentals of poker - counting outs, pot odds vs. draw odds, how to play each street. Because you are denied the opportunity to make bets that force your opponents into bad situations, you must learn how to play correctly to be successful. Someone used a basketball analogy that is apt. You have to learn how to dribble, make a layup, make a jumper, make a chest pass and a bounce pass before you learn to dunk, make the behind the back pass and the crossover dribble.

2) bankroll management - because NL requires you to make those large bets, it is much easier to find yourself on a real fast downswing. In limit, if you are playing correctly, you will have your downswings, but they will tend to be more gradual. Onn the assumption that, as a beginner, you WILL make mistakes, in NL, those mistakes are likely to be far more costly than in limit.

3) analysis - I believe that it is much easier to analyse your game in limit. Again, because it is a game that relies on fundamentals, and because bet sizes are set, it is much easier to locate your areas of weakness. Do you overvalue your hand on the turn? Are you calling bets that are unprofitable? Because you remove bet size from the equation, these analyses are much easier over the long term. In NL, when attempting to analyse your play, you have to consider the same factors, but you also have to add the issue of your bet sizes.

I think that once you have a basic grasp of limit and the fundamentals of the game - and if you feel you can beat the game at the lower levels, then you make the choice - do I move up to higher level limit or do I switch over to NL - both of these moves require you to make adjustments to your game - and at that point, I think it becomes a matter of preference - of course, another factor is whether to focus on cash games or tournaments, but that is a discussion for another thread.

Can some of the more seasoned players expand on #1 above, regarding the basketball analogy? It implies that NL is harder than limit. Why is limit more like simple dribbling, and why is NL more like dunking?

[CJHunt]

NL is MUCH easier to beat at low limits. The people at low limit NL tables are USUALLY your typical "I watched it on TV and even I can win!!" people.

I think his thought process was along the lines that

Limit teaches you the basics.

NL allows you to try trickier things.

What do I know though? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


Edit: I also think there are bigger swings in limit as compared to NL. I think/hope one of the higher ups will confirm my correctness.

[Cooker]

In NL the better player usually has a much bigger advantage over the worse player than in limit. I think it is reasonable then when you start off learning and getting used to the game that limit might be a better choice.

However, limit players need considerable preparation to be able to convert to NL. Reads and making tough folds is much more crucial in NL. When the betting is hot and heavy in NL the hands are usually much nearer to the nuts than when the betting is hot and heavy in limit. Also the really juicy live ones that think they are Gus Hansen don't last nearly as long at NL so you won't see quite as many total live ones.

If you want to start out immediately with NL then I don't see any problem reading the section of Getting Started in Hold em and playing the short stack system. This will keep you from bleeding chips too fast and will allow you to see how things are done.

[jb9]

The only reason (other than someone's personal preference) why I think limit is "better" for a beginner would be that individual mistakes are not as costly in limit. However, this is not sufficient reason (to my mind) to generally recommend limit over no limit as long as the beginning no limit player manages his bankroll properly (you can, for example, play $2.00 max buy in no limit, wherein your risk to your bankroll will be quite small).

Regarding the "fundamentals of poker," I just don't see how limit teaches this better than no limit. If anything, no limit is more complicated and requires learning more fundamentals than limit since bet sizes must be taken into consideration and implied odds are much larger (and many people would argue that reading your opponents is much more important in no limit).

One could argue that at low levels too many no limit players "just go all in" instead of "playing poker", but one could also argue that at low levels too many limit players "chase any draw" and "play any 2 suited cards" so that it is just a "lottery" to see who gets dealt the best hand.

As for analysis, I think that is a matter of personal preference. It may be more complicated to analyze play in no limit games, but that doesn't make it better or worse.

I think learning different variants of poker will necessarily help your game in the long run, but it will slow down your learning process for each particular variant. Each variant has qualities that make it unique. While some arguments could be made about which variant is better suited for new players, IMHO as long as a new player knows the basics and risks of the form of poker they are playing, they should play what they like.

[AASooted]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason (other than someone's personal preference) why I think limit is "better" for a beginner would be that individual mistakes are not as costly in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, the best reason to suggest limit to a beginner is that there are more good beginner books on limit than there are on NL.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the "fundamentals of poker," I just don't see how limit teaches this better than no limit. If anything, no limit is more complicated and requires learning more fundamentals than limit since bet sizes must be taken into consideration and implied odds are much larger (and many people would argue that reading your opponents is much more important in no limit).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the extra complication in NL makes learning the fundamentals more important, but not easier. It stands to reason that a game with fewer variables will allow a beginner to focus more closely on the fundamentals.

[ QUOTE ]
While some arguments could be made about which variant is better suited for new players, IMHO as long as a new player knows the basics and risks of the form of poker they are playing, they should play what they like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If someone prefers one or the other, that's the one they should probably play. I'd suggest at least trying the other version after they're comfortable. They may find they enjoy it more than they thought.

[Pov]

To be clear, I am referring to micro/low limits throughout this post. So I'm assuming most of your opponents are poor players and your decisions are mostly based on playing ABC poker at 1st or 2nd level thinking. At the higher levels I think limit and no limit are much closer together because most of the game becomes the reads of and mind games with your opponents. At the low limits this is certainly not the case.

[ QUOTE ]
This is obviously an extension from another thread on this board, but I thought it would be good to have a general discussion, from a beginner's perspective, on these two games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea. Warning: I'm going to disagree with your reasoning, but agree on your conclusion - hopefully the useful discussion you're looking for will arise from this difference of opinion.


[ QUOTE ]

1) fundamentals - limit is a game that requires you to learn and respect the fundamentals of poker - counting outs, pot odds vs. draw odds, how to play each street. Because you are denied the opportunity to make bets that force your opponents into bad situations, you must learn how to play correctly to be successful. Someone used a basketball analogy that is apt. You have to learn how to dribble, make a layup, make a jumper, make a chest pass and a bounce pass before you learn to dunk, make the behind the back pass and the crossover dribble.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Playing a hand *well* in limit requires much more fundamental knowledge than in no limit. For a beginner, the main reason to play limit is that their mistakes are not likely to cost them as much money. Pot odds are arguably much more important in no limit. If you draw with poor odds in limit it costs you a bet. In no limit it could be costing you many bets. You're also much more likely to draw incorrectly in no limit since bets are typically much larger in relation to the size of the pot. A limit player will have to be crafty to give you bad odds to your draw while it is very easy to do in no limit.

The reason I say limit requires more fundamental knowledge is precisely because you can't just make your bets bigger to bail you out of a tough situation and force drawing hands to fold. To make a strong profit at limit you must play your marginal hands and play them well, recognize chances to force the field to call multiple bets, know how to save bets and value bet on the end well.

Don't get me wrong, no limit is very skillful indeed and *great* for tournaments, but in terms of cash games, there is a lot more to think about in limit IMO - though if you make a mistake you'll surely be punished more harshly in no limit. The fancy passing patterns and defenses, etc. are part of limit while no limit is more like street ball with a lot of power dunks. There can still be a lot of finesse, but it comes in fewer forms.

So the reason I think beginners should start in limit is because beginners make a lot of mistakes and should play where their mistakes are not likely to destroy their entire bankroll quickly before they can become winning players. Once you are a winning player, I think NL is more profitable though I personally still prefer limit - I find NL pretty boring when not part of a tournament simply because the decisions are usually so clear cut.

[ QUOTE ]

2) bankroll management - because NL requires you to make those large bets, it is much easier to find yourself on a real fast downswing. In limit, if you are playing correctly, you will have your downswings, but they will tend to be more gradual. Onn the assumption that, as a beginner, you WILL make mistakes, in NL, those mistakes are likely to be far more costly than in limit.


[/ QUOTE ]

For a winning player, downswings are smaller in no limit than in limit. The luck factor is smaller in no limit and this means you'll have smaller downswings. For a losing player however - which most beginners will be for a while - limit is more preferable because as mentioned, your mistakes are likely to cost you much more money in no limit while luck is actually helping you in limit and making it hard for your more skillful opponents to totally crush you.


[ QUOTE ]

3) analysis - I believe that it is much easier to analyse your game in limit. Again, because it is a game that relies on fundamentals, and because bet sizes are set, it is much easier to locate your areas of weakness. Do you overvalue your hand on the turn? Are you calling bets that are unprofitable? Because you remove bet size from the equation, these analyses are much easier over the long term. In NL, when attempting to analyse your play, you have to consider the same factors, but you also have to add the issue of your bet sizes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I agree with this either - or at least not the reasoning. Bet size relative to the pot is still the same equation as it is in limit - you're either getting the odds you need or you aren't and dividing by 2 or 3 or 5 is not all that different than always dividing by 2. Analysis probably *is* easier in limit simply because so many good reference texts exist while that area is lacking in no limit IMO.


This is how I feel about limit versus no limit in small stakes, but I admit that while successful at both I have played a lot more limit and it is clearly my favorite so I may be biased. But I think it's the other way around - Limit is my favorite because I get to make more decisions and it feels more tactical, which is what I enjoy about poker. I do prefer no limit for tournament play.

[nmt09]

[ QUOTE ]
fundamentals - limit is a game that requires you to learn and respect the fundamentals of poker - counting outs, pot odds vs. draw odds, how to play each street. Because you are denied the opportunity to make bets that force your opponents into bad situations, you must learn how to play correctly to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that us NL players have to learn to count outs, pot odds, draw odds, and play each street.

You over simplify what a person much master to play NL successfully, if it was as simple as betting people out of the pot anyone could be great.

I certainly agree that limit is more welcoming to a beginner because of the swings in NL.

However I believe NL takes a greater level of skill to master and has far more things to take into account during a hand.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fundamentals - limit is a game that requires you to learn and respect the fundamentals of poker - counting outs, pot odds vs. draw odds, how to play each street. Because you are denied the opportunity to make bets that force your opponents into bad situations, you must learn how to play correctly to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that us NL players have to learn to count outs, pot odds, draw odds, and play each street.

You over simplify what a person much master to play NL successfully, if it was as simple as betting people out of the pot anyone could be great.

I certainly agree that limit is more welcoming to a beginner because of the swings in NL.

However I believe NL takes a greater level of skill to master and has far more things to take into account during a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Swings are actually much smaller in NL and there are far fewer things to take into consideration (is bet size really all that tough to understand?). The price of not mastering those few things however, can be much higher. I believe you're confusing speed of losing with amount of skill required to not lose.

Thanks for the reply.

"I disagree. Playing a hand *well* in limit requires much more fundamental knowledge than in no limit. For a beginner, the main reason to play limit is that their mistakes are not likely to cost them as much money. "

I think this is what I was trying to say - that you play limit to learn the fundamentals because you cannot be successful without them. To be a winning player in limit, you MUST master the fundamentals - and you get to do so while limiting the damage that a mistake can make.

However, I would argue that fundamentals are MORE important in no limit because every move has more significance.

On the issue of analysis, this afternoon, on a lark, I played a session of no limit - and here is the thing, most of the hands I won, I won because I knocked out my opponent. I rarely had to show down a hand.

What do we learn from showdowns - that are much more common in limit games - particularly at the lower levels where beginners play?

We learn what hands are more likely to win. We learn what kinds of flops we need for our starting hands to win. We learn what sorts of moves players are likely to make with what sorts of hands.

Those lessons are invaluable when playing NL - specifically because you now have the added ability to bet enough to potentially knock someone out - but you won't know whether that is a good idea or a bad idea until you understand how to evaluate the strength of your hand - which is a skill that you pick up most readily in limit.

Mostly, though, I would say that its all about the mistakes - since you are GOING to make mistakes, its better to make them in limit than in no limit.