|
|
#12
11-19-2005, 07:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: limit transition to no limit
[ QUOTE ]
PTBB? [/ QUOTE ] A PTBB is 2x the big blind in a NL cash game. In limit, the big blind is 1/2 the big bet which is the unit used to describe the winrate for limit cash games. 
|
|
#13
11-19-2005, 08:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit transition to no limit
Why do you say NL is easier than limit and then pull numbers from low stakes games?
Saying NL is easier than limit is a generalized statements that implies that NL is easier than limit under any circumstance. Yes you will find alot of donks at low stakes no limit tables, and they will make biiiig mistakes which are +EV for an somewhat skilled player. But that doesn't prove your statement to be true. That only tells us that playing NL against clueless opponents is likely to yield a bigger profit than limit. Well...playing limit against clueless opponents is easier than playing pot limit against tough opponents. Is pot limit more difficult than limit because of this? And frankly, I tire of pissing contests between limit and no limit, they are pointless. A well rounded and good poker player will beat games of different betting structures, even if it is NL, PL or FL. He will beat different house rules and he will beat different subsets of the game, be it it stud, omaha, tripledraw or whatnot.
|
|
#14
11-19-2005, 09:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit transition to no limit
You are making assumptions. I pull out the low to mid figures because this is where most of us fall. In high stake games, the games are generally a lot tougher no matter wether it is limit or NL. You will need to have mastered one of the two in order to play either game in higher stakes. Therefore, my argument is for the games that people will most likely be playing in.
|
|
#15
11-19-2005, 10:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit transition to no limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] PTBB? [/ QUOTE ] A PTBB is 2x the big blind in a NL cash game. In limit, the big blind is 1/2 the big bet which is the unit used to describe the winrate for limit cash games. [/ QUOTE ] Ah ok, thanks.
|
|
#16
11-19-2005, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit transition to no limit
The mere fact that a knowledgeable player can make more money playing NL as opposed to limit does not mean NL is easier. It's because of the structure of the game. You cannot trap a man for all his chips in limit. In limit you do not get punished as much for your mistakes. Don't forget, in NL the suckouts usually cost you a lot more than in limit. Your argument has no validity.
|
|
#17
11-19-2005, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit transition to no limit
[ QUOTE ]
A high winrate at low limit to mid limit hold'em is generally agreed upon to be 3-4BB/100. The accepted ceiling we will say is 4BB/100. In NL, at the corresponding levels, 8-12PTBB/100 is a good winrate with really good players being able to hammer out 15-18PTBB/100 in the lowest games. We will use the ceiling to be 18PTBB/100 for NL. I grab one million people at random. I have half of them play NL ring and half play limit ring. I believe I will have a much higher percentage of people beating the NL games for a "good" rate (~8PTBB/100) than you will have people beating limit for a "good" rate (~3BB/100). Do people disagree with this? [/ QUOTE ] Are you taking people that have never played poker before? Have they played limit, NL before? How many of these players are going to be winners - and why do you think more will be able to beat NL for 18TBB than beat the limit game for 4bb? What do you base this idea on? I'm not trying to be a prick here - just give me some sound ideas that can be substantiated to support your theory. Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
|
|
#18
11-19-2005, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit transition to no limit
[ QUOTE ]
The mere fact that a knowledgeable player can make more money playing NL as opposed to limit does not mean NL is easier. It's because of the structure of the game. You cannot trap a man for all his chips in limit. In limit you do not get punished as much for your mistakes. Don't forget, in NL the suckouts usually cost you a lot more than in limit. Your argument has no validity. [/ QUOTE ] All of your arguments against my point have poor logic behind the thinking. Using this phrase "In limit you do not get punished as much for your mistakes. Don't forget, in NL the suckouts usually cost you a lot more than in limit. Your argument has no validity," has no clue what they are talking about. I won't even bother arguing with you.
|
|
#19
11-19-2005, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit transition to no limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A high winrate at low limit to mid limit hold'em is generally agreed upon to be 3-4BB/100. The accepted ceiling we will say is 4BB/100. In NL, at the corresponding levels, 8-12PTBB/100 is a good winrate with really good players being able to hammer out 15-18PTBB/100 in the lowest games. We will use the ceiling to be 18PTBB/100 for NL. I grab one million people at random. I have half of them play NL ring and half play limit ring. I believe I will have a much higher percentage of people beating the NL games for a "good" rate (~8PTBB/100) than you will have people beating limit for a "good" rate (~3BB/100). Do people disagree with this? [/ QUOTE ] Are you taking people that have never played poker before? Have they played limit, NL before? How many of these players are going to be winners - and why do you think more will be able to beat NL for 18TBB than beat the limit game for 4bb? What do you base this idea on? I'm not trying to be a prick here - just give me some sound ideas that can be substantiated to support your theory. Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I understand Dogmeat, which is why you are the only one giving me any good reasoning structure or making it worthwhile to answer. I'll elaborate when my buzz wears off, I'm smoking some really good kief right now.
|
|
#20
11-19-2005, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit transition to no limit
Ok then, I'll assume the same logic then:
NL is easier than FL because a winning player will win more. NL is harder than FL because a losing player will lose more. PL is harder than FL because PL often attracts more serious players. PL is easier than FL because you you will probably have a lower win/100 in FL vs bad players than in PL vs bad players. 7-card stud is easier than hold'em because a beginning player will make easier to spot mistakes. Hold 'Em is easier than 7-card stud because when you are new, you're mistakes won't be so visible. Ok,based on those statements I deduce that: FL is easier than NL. NL is easier than FL. PL is easier than FL. FL is easier than PL. 7-card stud is easier than hold'em. Hold'em is easier than 7-card stud.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
