Why Play Limit

[josie_wales]

I have a serious question.

Why play Limit-Hold-em?

I would love to hear the responses as to why to play limit as opposed to NL Holdem/PL Holdem.

As a Limit-converted-to-NL-player, I remember most situations where I was ahead and betting/checkraising it was rare that a players call on a chase was not correct odds-wise.

Additionally, when I finally hit a big hand, getting paid off in terms of "BB's" instead of "stacks" can be a let down.

On the flip side, I know that limit allows for one to draw at big hands getting the proper odds more frequently.

So, does it boil down to your playing style? How you would rather play?

Why wouldnt someone rather be able to have the option to bet ANY amount that they want in order to manipulate the other players into folding/calling or making an incorrect fold/call?

Why wouldnt someone want the ability to take a stack?

Why wouldnt someone want the ability to protect a vulerable hand?

Or to trap someone into losing their stack?

I am not trying to come off as 'holier-than-thou' or to say that "NL is a much better game" or anything along those lines.

I truly am curious as to why anyone would chose a Limit Game over a NL game.

I honestly look forward to your responses.

Thanks all,

JW

[bicyclekick]

cause there is much more money to be made for a person with my skills...cause you can play more tables and not risk losing it all.

The big nl games are tough...while the big limit games are relatively much easier.

[josie_wales]

Bicylce,
I had a feeling that the [ QUOTE ]
not risk losing it all

[/ QUOTE ] was going to come into play.

In fact, I thought that would end up being the leading reason -- we'll see.

You also mentioned about the big Limit games being easier than the big NL games.

The thing is...You do not have to play as big of a NL game comparitively to a Limit game to get similar pot sizes.

Many $2-$4 NL and $5/$10 NL games have pot sizes that are quite comparible to the $10/20 games I think.

jw

[lil feller]

I think for most people that play to win, not necessarily pros, just like to make money, the leading factor is bankroll size. I can sit down in a 20-40 game and just have a terrible run of cards, keep missing while they keep hitting, and leave a 50-60 BB loser and have it not effect my bankroll in the slightest. One hand of NL can affect the bankroll of most recreational winning players, and they don't like the idea of losing their entire night's stake the first time their top set gets chased down by the guy that flopped an open ended straight flush draw and called the all in bet. Limit is safer, and while you certainly LIMIT how quickly you can win, you also limit how quickly you can lose. Just works better for some people. Interesting question...

lf

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
You also mentioned about the big Limit games being easier than the big NL games.

The thing is...You do not have to play as big of a NL game comparitively to a Limit game to get similar pot sizes.

Many $2-$4 NL and $5/$10 NL games have pot sizes that are quite comparible to the $10/20 games I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true, but those pots aren't being built by multiple people putting in a fixed amount. Most big no-limit pots are built between two, maybe three people, and rarely are you ever getting 2:1 or better on the bet you put into a pot. If you win a $300 pot in a 2-4 NL game, its probably because you put in $150 of it.

lf

[andyfox]

Saw a guy in the restroom the other day who I hadn't seen in a while. He said hello. I asked him how he was doing. He said losing. (I didn't mean about poker, but that's how poker players take "how're you doing?".) I asked, "No limit?" And he said yes.

He asked if I now play no-limit and I told him no. He said try it, once you do, you won't go back. I asked him if he found the games slow-paced. He said yes, you need a lot of time and a lot of patience.

I play limit because it's what I grew up with, it's what I know. I'm a conservative guy, so I think limit suits my persona. I watch the no-limit games sometimes on a break. Each hand takes forever. Each decision on the turn and river takes forever. Usually, the action goes either:

-Limp, limp, raise all fold.

Limp, limp raise, all fold except one guy who comes over the top, and now the original raiser folds.

[josie_wales]

Very nice response lil.

What if bankroll were out of the question (I know it cant be) but lets say it is?

Is it a risk/bankroll issue?

Are they any arguements aside from risk/bankroll for why Limit is better than NL or why better players play limit?

jw

[lil feller]

Personally, I think limit is much more difficult to play well. Look at it like this. I think everybody on this forum will agree that to play 7-card stud expertly is much more difficult than playing Hold'em expertly. That being assumed, it stands to reason then that an expert 7-card stud player will make more per hand then an expert hold'em player (given comprable limit, keep in mind the stud has one extra big bet round every hand) because the game is more difficult and players are more likely to make mistakes. The expert has a larger edge over his competition.

Limit is much harder to play at an expert level, because the bet is fixed. Most big decisions in NL are clear cut, and happen either pre-flop or on the flop. All other things being equal, an expert limit player stands to have a larger edge over his opposition than an expert NL player (again, all other aspects being equal). Combine that with the fact that you see close to triple the hands, and I think you have a strong argument for playing limit.

lf

[Alexthegreat]

The money is not comparable....In NL you are usually getting 1-1 on your money, at the best of times maybe 2-1....Over the long term a good limit player will make much more than a good NL player, if they are playing at comparable stakes.....

[Alexthegreat]

If bankroll was out of the question, the ideal game would be a high stakes NL game, something along the lines of 100/200 I imagine.....There is enough money in that kind of game to make it worthwhile for a time....But
I would say that if bankroll were not a question, big buy-in tourneys would be the way to go, wouldn't it??