which game should i play

Hi everyone im new to the forum but not new to poker I have a dilemma that i thought u guys could help me I have played limit and no-limit for about 6months or so I play both games with about the same amount of knowledge but would like to concentrate on either limit or no-limit before playing all games my question is what game would be more profitable for me if i would play stakes of .50/1 limit or .10/.25 NL I just cant make up my mind please help thanks everyone.

great question there friend - I was wondering the exact same thing.
Hope to follow this thread.

Thanks

full ring, assuming you are a winning player:

.50/1 Limit crushing game @ 4BB/100 = $4/100 hands
.25/.50 NL crushing game @ 10BB/100 = $5/100 hands

4 tabling = $5-$6/hr + rakeback

Both winrates are achievable but difficult, even expert. You need lots of experience to get there. With rakeback more hands get higher rake in NL (you are contesting large pots at this winrate). Assume you are controlling draws and reducing your variance at NL. This player is probably just running good, not actually beating the games for this rate.

NL wins, hands down.

.50/1 normal win rate @ 2BB/100 = $2/100 hands
.25/.50 NL normal win rate @ 5BB/100 = $2.50/100 hands

4 tabling = $2.50 - $3/hr + rakeback
Here rakeback might help tip the scales towards limit but if you're in LAG NL games the rake will be almost as high as the 10BB/100 player. This is a more sustainable win rate. You aren't maximizing your NL potential at this rate.

A gut instinct tells me NL still wins, *especially* if you can control your variance by forcing not just bad, but AWFUL calls.

This is such a close "edge" that I'd say play 5k hands at each level and make an instinct determination as to which type you dominate more. You won't have a good enough sample size to make a mathmatical determination.

All of the above is off the cuff, I didn't do any math. I think the NL game has more potential for gains at a certain level than limit.

It depends upon your mindset as a player
I think its fnords comment in the limit foum that if you are a player capable of making lots of small odds based desicisions over and over agaian then you can mae lots of money at limit. If that sounds not so good i d play full ring 25nl and play tight looking for AK,AQ and pps hitting a set.
At 25nl you should be able t o beat the game by looking only for big hands

I personally can't stand limit. I like the fact that I can control the odds that the opponent gets in NL.
Pick the game that you enjoy more. You need to enjoy playing the game in order to keep coming back to it.

I play both .5-1 Limit Full Ring (graduating to 1-2 soon) and 25maxNL Full Ring

Limit is clealy not as exciting and requires you to read a book or two (Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones and then Small Stakes Hold 'em my Milller/Sklanksy/Malmuth). Playing ABC poker at mico limits (big bet $1 or less) is easily profitable as long as you follow the road map. After you get your feet under you you'll be on your way to try alternating your play. It's a slow grind, but if you're patient you'll learn solid poker (position, betting for information/value, starting hand requirements, etc.) while playing a lot more hands than you can at the low buyin NL tables as a profitable TAGG camper (arguably the best style in these highly loose games)

No Limit is certainly more exciting but if you're not already established as a disciplined poker player/bankroll manager it's a riskier learning curve. I think a lot of people start playing NL increase their Bankroll fast and never look back. But there are certainly even more who see their bankroll disappear over a few days overplaying/gambling with their stacks.

I still feel the safest way to learn the fundamentals of poker is reading one of the above mentioned books, play micro limits profitably for a few months, build your roll and then dabble with both sides of the cash games. Basically it comes down to your preference, but by no means are you grounded in one game for the rest of your poker career by the choice you make now Good luck

Rubix is so wise.

ill agree with rubix
Ive just taken up limit after 18 months of no limit and it has improved some importnat parts of my game no end.
Obviously nl will make you money fast/go broke fast but limit will teach you to play good poker if you read and learn well which can only be good. Startin from a bad bas is many players later downfall hen swings hit

I prefer limit, and I actually think that it's more profitable considering bankrolls, because you need a smaller bankroll to play at limits. smoore compared .5/1 to $50NL. in NL you need 15-20 buy-ins, so that's $750-$1000 Bankroll for $50NL. The bankroll for limit is usually 300BBs, so you could play that with a $300 BR. so with a $50NL bankroll, you could play 1/2, and be making more than $50NL. plus, limit has smaller short-term swings, (but bigger long-term swings) and it's eaiser to multi-table.

no one seemed to be making the case for limit, thought i'd throw my 2 cents in there