NL v. limit

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think for many NL players its not a power thing. There are simply more tools in the shed for a NL player when compared to limit due to non-restrictive betting, leading to larger winrates and a larger gulf in skill between good and bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO the gulf in skill between good and bad players is WAY larger in limit. In the long run, a poor limit player is in far more trouble against a superior limit player than a poor NL player is against a poor NL player. In limit, the poorer player has no way to reduce the edge the superior player has in post-flop play, which he can eliminate in NL simply by going all-in. In the end, he will be crushed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all dependent on how long of a time period we are talking. If you are talking a one time HU match, then you probably are correct, provided the noob NL player was smart enough to realize the strategy you bring up, which is debatable since he is supposedly a poor player. Even so, a good NL could adjust and still maintain a large edge. If it were a series of matches, or some other scenario that is more drawn out, the edge of the NL player is much larger than that of the limit player over weaker competition. There is really no question that the BB/100 of the NL player would be higher.

Personally I find Limit much more difficult to play. When I started playing I started with limit and then moved on to NL. Ive gone back a few times and find myself completely off my game. The way you read people is completely different and I havent been able to get myself back into that mentality.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]

IMO the gulf in skill between good and bad players is WAY larger in limit. In the long run, a poor limit player is in far more trouble against a superior limit player than a poor NL player is against a poor NL player. In limit, the poorer player has no way to reduce the edge the superior player has in post-flop play, which he can eliminate in NL simply by going all-in. In the end, he will be crushed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Going all in doesnt reduce someones edge. All it does is negate any positional advantage your opponent has. Bad players by definition will go all-in at bad times where they are way behind. If anything going all-in for a bad player increases the good players edge. Play the $25 buy-in, you see a lot of really donkish stuff.

There are moves you can make in NL that you can't make in limit like pricing your opponent out of the hand by making a bet or raise thet ruins his odds. For example, in limit it's often to call a river bet based on pot odds, in NL you can bet so large that the player can't call based on odds. I'm sure there are plays in limit that don't apply to NL, I don't play enough limit to know. I wouldn't mind if some of you guys care to tell me about them since you guys play more limit than I do.
I think the answer to the question, which is harder, can also be dependent on the person. Not everyone can play both, some people play one better than the other because it is a better fit for them.

[rwanger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can make so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also lose so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are losing huge pots as often as you are winning huge pots, then you definately have some leaks in your nl game.

You could debate this until the end of time. If you are willing to grind it out in order to slowly - but steadily - build your role I think limit is a much more probitable game. In no-limit, a single mistake can destroy a bankroll you just worked for the past 8 hours building up. That is why all the big money players - with a few exceptions - stick to playing limit in cash games. That is why until the big poker wave hit, you rarely saw people playing no-limt cash games. Obviously, if you are far more skilled than your opponent, no-limit is likey the better game because your hourly rate will likely be much larger. So, as is the answer with every poker question, "It all depends."

I play them both about 50/50, but I play NL at very low buy-ins and FL at middle stakes, so my play at NL won't cripple my bankroll and at the FL I don't really need to worry to get much punished.

If it were other way around I would stress my ass off at the NL and would be totally bored at the FL.

Which is more profitable? Depends on the person and his luck.

[ QUOTE ]
That is why all the big money players - with a few exceptions - stick to playing limit in cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong, so don't misinterpret this post. From my understanding, they do occasionally include No Limit Hold 'em in The Big Game, especially when the raise the stakes. Also, Doyle Brunson has been playing NL as long as he's been playing. In his book, Barry Greenstein refers to playing NL cash games years ago, so, I don't think it's as uncommon as many would make it seem, just that limit has always been much more popular until recently, but it seems that there has always been a NL game and, now, there always will be.

[In Paradise]

[ QUOTE ]

Think about it -- if NL were the true test of a player's ability, why are all of the Big Game players all playing limit??

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, 3 of the 7 or 8 games they play in the Big Game are not fixed limit.