Is NO LIMIT the new King of Hold'em?

[Don Olney]

I think NL will run for a while -- BUT ---
Most wil find they can not handle the swings, are no good at it and will find their way back to limit ----
A true NO LIMIT game will not be offered by amny places and it will not last the test of time. NOt many can handle that size of GAME ----

[RydenStoompala]

Interesting series of responses so far. I, for one, have not been under a rock for two years. The trend that started two years ago is now exploding; that was my only point.

When I think of No Limit, I recall TJ Cloutier's assessment of the game. Like Doyle Brunson, he likes to "put someone on a hand, put them to the test." The "old school" players were not, and still aren't, as sensitive to blowing an entire bankroll in one night as are the more modern poker specialists, especially the limit experts. For TJ, the comparrison comes down to a simple analysis. If he's down in a limit game, it's too much work to get even or go up. He likes the swings and the ability to change the status of key players at the table with a single card.

It's not the same game. After playing limit for years, I am drawn to the NL table because of the added volatility and the influx of new players attracted by the TV glamour of the game. As several posters have noted, these games can be very profitable. All I thought, while watching the guy next door to me win thousands of dollars this week, was "that could be me...I see what he's doing!"

I think the cycle is in its early stages. I see NL as the explosive growth area for established and new cardrooms. The maximum buy-in does create a hybrid no limit game, but in general terms, it's NL... it's not a limit hold'em experience.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Is limit becoming a bore?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I like to play tournaments but I prefer limit... good luck finding a limit tournament at a B&M cardroom. They're few and far between. NL is king and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Even though I prefer limit, I agree that NL is more exciting and more profitable - to players who are good at NL. Sadly I'm a lousy NL player so I pretty much stick to the limit games where I've had success.

If I can ever manage to learn the skills that make a good NL player I might play more NL. But I tend to be conservative and methodical in my play and that translates better to limit. I'm sure there are other players like me who actually like to see more than 2 cards before they risk their whole stack.... so limit will still be around, although less popular than NL.

I think both games will continue to have their fans, but NL will continue to be more popular because it's more exciting and it's pretty much the only game on tv.

[canis582]

limitsucksnolimitrulesgoodnightnow

I just got back from vegas and all I did was play the $200 buy in game at bellagio, there were at least five tables going in the afternoon, ran between semi-tight and very loose very aggressive. Trip report coming next week...Im going to naples tonight. FORE!

[Yads]

I think NL will eventually die off like it did in the 80s and early 90s. Big bet poker punishes bad players at a much faster rate than fixed bet poker.

[bdk3clash]

"Most wil find they can not handle the swings, are no good at it and will find their way back to limit"

Ah yes, the dull grind and low variance of limit hold'em, bastion for those that can't handle the swings of no-limit.

Are you quoting "Rounders" on purpose or subconsciously?

[chucksim]

NL will cool off relatively soon. The bad players will run out of money and/or get so frustrated they'll find other outlets for their money.

[me454555]

I doubt the bad players will just leave and go back to limit. Although I'm not a fan of NL poker, it does provide something that limit does not. Action. The adrenaline thrill of NL is that any time you can double up your entire stack. This is somewhat different than the limit game which has smaller swings.

To the bad players, NL poker is like craps. They think they can beat the game but cannot and ultimately play b/c they like the action. If they wanted to win, they would simply read and play better.

The other thing that NL has going for it is that it is "the cadilac of poker". Theres a certain level of respect that NLers believe the game entitles and these same people don't like limit b/c its a lesser game. They believe that limit hold em is all about luck b/c you can't prevent the suck outs and they happen so often.

For those reasons I think NL hold em will be here for quite a while. On the flip side, I will be playing limit b/c I just enjoy the game more. I don't think there will be any shortage of fish @ either game.

[Voltron87]

I do not think No Limit will cool down like everyone says, yes it is a more brutal game but there are also hundreds of thousands of new players with millions of more dollars to lose. The old poker economy could not sustain NL but I think the influx of new players who want to play it can. People who have good jobs and who watch poker are still going to gamble and play NL even if they lose, since there are so many new recreational players there is more money to be lost.

Last time I checked there are not many casinos and sportsbooks going broke.

So my $.02 is that while NL does seperate the winners from the losers faster, there are so many more losers with so much more money that they are not going to dry up like the poker economy would 10 years ago if everyone played NL.

[turnipmonster]

as for true NL games, in my opinion they've only grown and gotten better since relatively recent boom. the pot limit game where I play used to be the same people every week, now it's switched to NL and there's a constant new influx of players, and this is a deep game with no max buyin.

it sounds like the 10/20 NL games at the commerce and bellagio are healthy, as are the games in northern cal which have been going for years, no?