NL v. limit

[Dave Mac]

it is hard to be wrong as much as you are.
dave

[ QUOTE ]
couldn't have said it any better myself. NL is the best way to preserve your sanity at low limits and build your roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you experienced at limit? Or did you start playing limit after you first learned NL? I see a LOT of people who have begun poker since it started on TV get frustrated quickly when they play limit poker of any kind. This does not mean NL is more profitable it just means they may not know how to play limit. A Starting hand of AA is not as strong in limit holdem as it is in NL yet almost everyone assumes it is. Then when the blind or a clown catched a second pair on the river to crack their aces, they get disgusted and whine about it. In my opinion, you CANNOT underestimate how DIFFERENT LIMIT is from NL!!!! They look similar and the actions are similar so it is easy to see how inexperienced players try to play them the same way.

If you try to play a NL game at limit you will lose period. Limit poker is a grind..2BB/100 hands is considered good. You have to play thousands and thousands of hands due to variance to see if you are a winner or loser.

I dont know which is more profitable but it is a funciton of your skills vs the rest of the people at the table.

[NateDog]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right the NL is trickier than Limit, but is a lot more profitable if you can learn how to read hands and play the player. This is good for limit, but it seems that you are wasting knowledge by just gaining one more bet when you know exactly what your opponent holds. My best attribute is figuring out a player's hand and then either getting them to call or fold. There is no way to do this in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reasoning is terribly flawed.

I would say in online play limit is far more profitable and easier to play. In a casino though I feel it is more profitable to play no limit. I find there to be a difference in the games played in the 2 different venues. but again it comes down to I think what the player is better at themselves and the game selection.

[papilindo]

Perhaps an appropriate analogy is the following:

You are given the task of "taking out" an adversary of equal strength, size etc., in a cage match without the benefit of any weapons for either of you...

Or, you are given the option where each of you will have a deadly weapon, say knives...

Choosing no weapons will in all likelihood be a more time consuming and arduous task. Choosing knives however, while potentialy allowing you to end the matter more quickly (easily), brings an extra element of difficulty in that if not used with sufficient expertise, could rapidly result in catastrophe due to even a minor miscalculation which otherwise might been overcome had no such weapons been involved.

Is LHE more difficult (bludgeoning someone over an extended period of time)...yes, in some respects.
Is NLHE more difficult (escalating the danger level)...yes, in some respects.

I personally prefer LHE as I am a more patient player who prefers to exploit small edges over a period of time as opposed to the potential for the "quick kill". Part of this is due in part, I must admit, to my reticence for being involved in dangerous situations, which obviously the NLHE player often finds himself in, albeit voluntarily in many cases.

Just my .02...

[rwanger]

Can't say which is easier or harder...but...

NO-LIMIT is WAAAY more profitable if you know what you are doing.

You can make so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit. Example: yesterday I bet 3x the pot with quads. My opponent called with top full. I made 50BB's (big bets) on the river alone. That's close to 2500 hands of profit at limit (2BB/100).

There are people out there making in the range of 10BB/100 in no-limit. Due to the restricted betting in limit poker, this is just not possible.

[Salva135]

[ QUOTE ]
In NL there are MANY more ways to outplay weaker players. weaker players catch on and go play limit where it's not as noticable that they are being outplayed so badly. IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! Someone has finally hit on why limit can be so incredibly profitable.

Clearly NL is all the vogue today, but the fact is that a good limit player will crush a bad limit player far more easily than a good NL player will crush a bad NL player. Without the ability to take down a huge pot due to a lucky suckout, the poor limit player will ONLY win by pushing the correct edges, of which he will have limit against a superior opponent.

[Salva135]

That should read, "of which he will have little against a superior opponent."

The real issue here is that it's sexy and exciting to be good at reading an opponent's hand, making fancy players and getting him to call with a worse hand or lay down a better hand. It is not sexy and exciting to have a better understanding of probability than your opponents and to crush them over time by repeatedly pushing edges. Everyone who watches poker on TV and just gets started wants to be the sexy hand-reader, because guys like Moneymaker say they don't read poker books, they just use pure guts and instinct.

Missing from this discussion is the point that in NL, a bad player can reduce a better player's edge on later streets by pushing all-in, whereas in limit games one has to learn how to develop a solid post-flop game, which I think a lot of inexperienced players who watch on TV are inherently uncomfortable with.

No one has also pointed out the fact that at high limits, limit HE is a vastly different game than it is at the lower limits. Sure, that decision to call on the river is only one BB, but when that BB is equal to $200, the decision suddenly carries a lot more weight. At these and higher limits, Limit HE is very much about hand reading and outplaying your opponents. 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 ]
Can't say which is easier or harder...but...

NO-LIMIT is WAAAY more profitable if you know what you are doing.

You can make so much more money on your big hands, amounts not possible in limit. Example: yesterday I bet 3x the pot with quads. My opponent called with top full. I made 50BB's (big bets) on the river alone. That's close to 2500 hands of profit at limit (2BB/100).

There are people out there making in the range of 10BB/100 in no-limit. Due to the restricted betting in limit poker, this is just not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a worthless example because, no matter how skilled you are, there is just as good a chance that you will one day be on the losing side of that equation.

I don't think either game is easier or harder. I think for an expert player, NL is a more potentially profitable game because they can extract the most possible money off of weaker players. For anyone else, I think its a toss-up - in NL, you will suffer some horrible beats that can kill you - and in limit, you do not have the same potential for big victories.

The way I look at it is that in limit, you are at the mercy of the odds. If the pot is 10BB and you hold top pair, there is no way that you can put someone in a situation where it is not correct to call with a draw to an outside straight or a flush.

In NL, your goal is to correctly DICTATE the odds to suit your situation. So if you hold top pair and you think your opponent is on a flush draw, you can bet to make it incorrect for them to play their draw. Similarly, if you have a full house, you can bet so that it is correct for them to play their draw.

Personally, I think that a lot of people here are simply making up reasons why they think NL is better when, if they were being honest, the truth is that they like it more because they have the opportunity to be more aggressive and to push people around - its a power thing.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
1. It is not sexy and exciting to have a better understanding of probability than your opponents and to crush them over time by repeatedly pushing edges.

2. Missing from this discussion is the point that in NL, a bad player can reduce a better player's edge on later streets by pushing all-in, whereas in limit games one has to learn how to develop a solid post-flop game, which I think a lot of inexperienced players who watch on TV are inherently uncomfortable with.

3. Sure, that decision to call on the river is only one BB, but when that BB is equal to $200, the decision suddenly carries a lot more weight.

4. 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 ]

1. How do you think most NL pros make their living? Sexy and exciting has nothing to do with it. Pushing edges is how you win. Also, FWIW understanding how to bluff or force a bad call in NL is pushing an edge.

2. Any good NL player will tell you the majority of his profit comes from post flop play. It is true that a bad player can go all in on later streets, but a good player will know to adjust and will end up with the bad player's stack eventually by utilizing hand range and pot odds calculations.

3. High limit games do play differently, but that $200 BB is still just one BB. If the BB being worth $200 as opposed to $20 makes the decision carry more weight, you aren't thinking about the game properly.

4. I'm assuming most of the players in that group would agree that some sort of deep stack HU match would be the best way to test each players ability. Point being, they aren't necessarily playing the game that is the true test of a player's ability. As far as I know, they play mixed games, with NL being one of the games.