LIMIT or NO-LIMIT

Hi all,

I've been playing online poker for about two months. I started playing 0.50/1.00$ limit, made some profit. Tried some SnG, was about even on that for some time then keep finishing 4th-5th (still have to learn things for tournement playing), then switch to 25$NL. Here I had some spikes, but during christmas, my bankroll went down. I told my self that I was undiscipline during that week, so I played tighter and remake some decent money, but then a face a real Bad Beat, so bad that I went down to less then 25$. I then Return to LIMIT 0.5/1.00$ and manage my bankroll over 100$ in couple of hours.

I do log every table I play and also log my winnings/losses per days just for statistics purposes.


When I look to my LIMIT experience, I'm way up positive, in NL, I'm about even maybe a bit +. In SnG, I'm down for about 60$.


NL seems to to have Bigger swings then LIMIT. Am I right on this ?

What bad about LIMIT is when you have a great hand and you wanted to push hard, you can't, so you have more chance to have someone that suckyouout with a poor hand and gets his cards late.

But in NL, when you do push and face an idiot who follows your AA on a 40$ bet with 47o on a FLOP AT5 and got his 6 and 8 on the turn and river, you can lost all your money in one shot !!!

What are your opinions on this ?

Thanks

xxDFOxx

NL can have smaller swings becuase you can control the protection of big hands. However, if you're still making mistakes, the swings will be larger.

The main difference between No Limit and Limit is simply the decisions.

Limit has smaller, more frequent decisions that usually have an easy solution.

No Limit has more exotic and difficult decisions with a lot more riding on the line but becuase of this, has higher win rates at equivalent stakes.

Personally, No Limit is more enjoyable becuase of it's difficulty.

-'rilla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxDFOCxx

When I look to my LIMIT experience, I'm way up positive, in NL, I'm about even maybe a bit +. In SnG, I'm down for about 60$.

---

From this, your decision should be easy. I play limit and the swings are bigger in limit. Lucky for me, I haven't had a substantial downswing in a while.

Hey Rilla, your saysing you prefer NL for it's complexity, Do I have to understand that making money is easier in LIMIT then NL. NL is more difficult cause you have to read the cards PLUS the bets PLUS slowplay quickplay. And your notes on any players are more important then that in LIMIT I think.



Les_Worm, You say that the swings are greater in LIMIT but you didn't face a serious downswing. Maybe it's because downswings are not as hard as in NL. And the upswing are maybe greater cause people play losser then in NL. Could that be it ?



I think that you we play intelligent poker in LIMIT, we can profit from looser or fishy players, and when there is some lucky players that beat your AA, KK hands or, that cost way less then in NL.

Like I said, I'm playing for only two months, but LOVE the game. If that hobby can become profitable (without becoming an addict :wink: ) I will be great. I will order myself Harrington's On Holdem and Theory of poker, I hope I will learn a lot from there.



[/quote]

i fail to see how people can say NL has smaller swings. in any given hand you can lose your stack or double it. pokertracker have NL players at double the standard deviation compared to limit players.

Didn't I just post in some other thread how it depends on how bad the players are? If the players are perfect calling stations, then NL will have higher variance. If the players are perfect TaGGs, then LHE will have higher variance, because of pot odds to draw.

Real poker is somewhere in between because you have a mix of players. Also, it strongly depends on the level and the specific game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypermegachi

i fail to see how people can say NL has smaller swings. in any given hand you can lose your stack or double it. pokertracker have NL players at double the standard deviation compared to limit players.

---

If you play near perfect in both limit and no limit, the fact that, in limit, you'll have more opponents drawing against you and the inability to protect AA and KK and other good "made early" hands will lead to bigger swings.

If you remove "bad calls for all your money" in NL, your swings are more controlled becuase you can choose when to draw with a hand properly and hit a big payoff AND protect the "made early" hands.

If you're a NL novice, you'll enjoy some big swings learning proper stategy and avoiding bad calls.

-'rilla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxDFOCxx

Hey Rilla, your saysing you prefer NL for it's complexity, Do I have to understand that making money is easier in LIMIT then NL. NL is more difficult cause you have to read the cards PLUS the bets PLUS slowplay quickplay. And your notes on any players are more important then that in LIMIT I think.

---

Limit will be easier becuase your decisions will be easier to make. But your winrate (how much you make per hour) will be lower.

-'rilla

Thanks for all your comments Rilla. Thanks for your time and also for the clarity of your explanations.

I will continu my learning by playing LIMIT and building my Bankroll. Then after reading One or to books, I will gradually comeback to NL cause I experience there some BIG wins. So when I will be able to controll more my losses, I'll be on track

I don't play much limit online. I stick to NL.

However, I have played in AC both limit (mostly 5/10) and NL and my profits are much higher in NL. Of course I have not played near enough hands to have a valid statistical sample. It's just a gut feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxDFOCxx

Les_Worm, You say that the swings are greater in LIMIT but you didn't face a serious downswing. Maybe it's because downswings are not as hard as in NL. And the upswing are maybe greater cause people play losser then in NL. Could that be it ?

---

I never said I've never had a downswing. I've had huge downswings, just not in a while. If I were to play NL, I would have bigger downswings but that is because I don't know how to play that game well. If I could play NL as good as I play limit then my limit downswings would be greater since you can't easily protect your good hands.

I much prefer NL, as gorrila said its a challenge. As far as bankroll, I'd say start with $100 and play SnG's and MTT's for 5+.50 or less. Your in the money if you place atleast 4th/3rd and if you bust your only losing 5% of your bankroll (well, granted that you don't drop too much below $100).

I think you might also have problems in playing too high of a buy-in for your bankroll.

At $25 buy-ins playing NL it's a good idea to have a minimum $400 bankroll.

The math on this:
Lets say you push all in on your good hands and win 66% of called all ins. You make a 16% profit here. However, if you have only 4 buy ins, your odds of losing 8 of these hands in a row are .33^4 = 1.1%

Over one month of play, pushing all-in 15 hands a day, you push 450 times. At these odds, you bust out 4.5 times/month (probably less because you are making a profit here)

With a bankroll of 8 buy-ins, you are .06% to bust out. With 12, you are .0075% to bust out. With 20, you are .0000001% to bust out. So generally, you should be safe and make enough profit to cover your ass with good play at about 10 buy-ins.

I think you should "follow your heart". What you enjoy the most, is probably what you can become best at. Now it´s of course a risk that you will choose limit because you´ve been winning there and therefore enjoy it more. But if you try to cut that away, and ask yourself: what table do I feel best at, where do I have most fun and where am I most likely to play correct - at a limit or at a no-limit table? For me personally, the answer is crystal clear: NL is the game for me.

I agree, it comes down to (1) your results, and (2) your preferences & what you have fun doing, but I would also suggest that a well-rounded poker player (which I am personally far from being) should learn to play BOTH well, and then perhaps eventually specialize in one or the other.

I personally think that the more you see how poker concepts (pots odds, implied odds, pot equity, pot equity edge, EV etc.) apply in various scenarios, the more you will actually understand the concepts and learn to apply them to make sound poker decisions in any (game) scenario.

In fact, some accomplished poker players feel they need to learn and become good at RAZZ, Omaha, Stud, Draw etc too; Daniel N. for example.
They say that you want to start off aspiring to be a TAGG, but ideally, what you ultimately want to strive to be is a 'Chameleon'. Well, I suspect that if you can become a decent player at other poker variants (i.e. more than just limit and NL Hold'Em), it might help contribute towards your development as a Chameleon. This kinda approach is not without risk however. You do run the risk of being a jack of all trade, master of none. So, it really depends on your own individual strengths, preferences, motivations etc.

I personally have my hands fulls with Limit and No-Limit Hold'em for now. However, I would like to learn the to play the other variants well some day (for me, ironically, that is mostly motivated by wanting to become a better HoldEm player).

Bottom line, you have to ask yourself what your motivations for playing are, and what your poker goals are (e.g. just make money, compete in tournaments, just beat your buddies in weak home-games........, become the next Howard L., .............. the list goes on and on and on).

I disagree with 'rillia on win rates (I don't really have enough data from good players to comment) but otherwise he's spot on.

LHE has bigger swings
LHE has more bad players at higher stakes
LHE has more small decisions with more data. It's more of a knife fight than a NL/PLHE gun battle because you just can't shove your chips in.
LHE has more money going in pre-flop.
NL/PLHE is more about playing the flop and less about starting hands.

But you don't disagree that NL is much more fun and overall better?

...

I take it from your silence that that means yes.

{Locked - thread locked so Fnord can't say otherwise}

-'rilla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

LHE has more small decisions with more data. It's more of a knife fight than a NL/PLHE gun battle because you just can't shove your chips in.

---

Or guerilla warfare vs. nuclear war....

Funny 'rilla dislikes it so much.

- sed

rilla will be stepping over to the dark side soon....i can sense it....it's inevitable!!

I'm reading SSH. I'm on page 33.

I'm gettin there.

-'rilla

Here's the basic idea.

NL - Riskier decisions - bigger reward/punishment

Limit - Less risky decisions - less reward/punishment

You really should play both games and decide what you like best.

Personally, I'm a NL player, I tried limit, and thought it sucked :wink:

What are you doing here?!?

Go back to bed!

You're gonna make us all sick, with your germs.

As opposed to the other things around here that make us sick.
like...
like...
tubgirl
*shiver*

I started playing Limit B&M back home. Ring game at a card room 3-6. Won a lot of money. (400 dollars in 2 days). I came back to Korea and started at Pokerstars 2-4 Limit ring game (Bad mistake). Extremely out of my bankroll and getting beat by players I had no right to be playing I immediately lost 200 (ouch). Played NL play money and got interested. By and large this game suited me a lot better. I have since never busted out my BR (started $50). And have since decided ring games were the actual problem I believe that specializing my game type has helped me level my variance. I play exclusively 5-.50 SNG's and am now 60% ITM with a good many wins. And yes I wage both guerrilla and nuclear styles of warfare andf agree that variance on limit much greater. I still prefer NL by far but keep my game fresh at the limit arena for that day I go back to that cardroom back home :twisted:

And Ober if you read this ;P

Play the form of poker that is most profitable/fun (whatever matters more to you). This isn't really a tough choice.

I find it harder to get away from a marginal hand in limit because the pot odds don't get out of sight because of the limit on the bets. I end up calling more often where I would throw the hand away in NL because the player(s) with the better hands will be placing bigger bets and put the pot odds out of my reach to call. The result is usually a negative impact on my bankroll.

Limit does have a higher variance. This is for two main reasons. Firstly, if you're a winning player, you'll make decisions to optimise your expectation. This frequently means playing marginal hands aggressively on the flop (particularly in large pots) which increases your variance.

Secondly, even if you do protect your hand correctly, (and contrary to popular opinion, you CAN protect your hand in limit :D ), because the size of the bets are limited the fish will often call when they shouldn't and occasionally (and in loose games, often) you will experience many bad beats.

If they call when they shouldn't that's not a problem, you still make money in the long run even if you lose that particular pot, but this also increases your swings. It's easier to protect your hands with huge bets in NL.

I don't think you can say that decisions at limit are 'easier', 'rilla. Finish reading SSH and then tell me you still think it's an easy game. :D

Quote:

---

I don't think you can say that decisions at limit are 'easier', 'rilla. Finish reading SSH and then tell me you still think it's an easy game.

---

Play 6max NL where the decision is close between folding and calling and tell me you don't wish you had the option of "calling down cheaply."

-'rilla

Calling down cheaply when all else fails rocks. Theres nothing like the virtual look on the guy with AA's face as you check call him to the river. He has no idea what you have, but you're calling anyway....so he doesnt bet!!! i love it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Play 6max NL where the decision is close between folding and calling and tell me you don't wish you had the option of "calling down cheaply."

-'rilla

---

Play 6max NL? Are you nuts?! :shock:

Seriously, I'm not saying NL isn't complex. Of course it is. But there's a common misconception that limit requires no skill and as long as you play tight preflop you'll win. I was just making the point that this isn't true.

I didn't say it took no skill.

People would be silly to believe that.

It's just the decisions are less stressful.

There we go. A nice and diplomatic response.

-'rilla

If you quaded up your bankroll at 25bb in LHE you are very very fortunate and I wouldn't even hope or think you're going to be doing it in the near future. Playing at those stakes with that bankroll in NL is stupid, but playing with it in limit you might as well go put some money down on a roulette table and cross your fingers.

Hello folks

Here is my two cents worth. NL and LIM are both complex, but the big thing I find is that the key decsions (or many of them ) take place at different points in the game. Also, there are more decisions over time in LIM than NL

I should add that I like LIM at 6H tables (hate it at 10), and like NL at 10H tables (hate it a 6H).

Playing LIM at at a 10H table seems a bit of a paradox for me. I wait for a good entry point and when I do have the hand I only have a pea-shooter to play with. If I am at a 10 person table, I want some ammo to both protect and/or capitalize on my hand.

Anyway, back to the differences.

In LIM I can live with a few (not many) bad or intuitive pre-flops decisions, because the key decision points come post-flop. If I make lots of bad decsions post-flop I will lose money.

In NL I find (especially in tourneys), the post-flop decisions more clear cut, and the pre-flop desicions way more crucial, as you can become full or partialy committed. :) (I know I am generalzing).

In LIM the better players gets the advantage, for several reasons.

1. He will be in more hands
2. He will have the opportunity to bet, raise, re-reasie, ck-raise, fold more often
3. he will see more cards (thus have more info) to add to his higher level of skill
4. He will not suffer fatal blows, thus he can vary his level of aggressiveness

In NL the better player will beat the weaker player more times than most. But the fact is the set-up of the game makes him more prone to going down or out quickly, and he can't use his skills if he just lost all his chips when your AQs took down his KK..

I realize that these are just opinions, but I think the very skilled players would be wise to take advantages of LIM. I have seen on threads that some of great players like NL the best, but make their big money by playing LIM over longer periods of time.


Let's look at a golf anaology to put things into perspective.

I'm playing TigerWoods for a a million $ (I know, bear with me).
We are agreeing on the rules for the tournanemt. He wants to play 18 holes. Me? Of course, I just want to play one hole.

I'm in deep trouble here. I'm outskilled by miles, so to maximize my chance of winning I need a couple of things to happen.

1. I need Tiger to have ONE beat beat (not a bunch of little ones)
2. I need to ensure that he can't recover from the bad beat
3. I need to play my best, and get lucky, because I know I can't sustain good play over time

So it's a no-brainer - I want to play one hole, hope he hits his drive in the lake or in the trees, and I hope I can win the hole.

What does Tiger want?

1. More chances to use his skill, to help minimize a bad beat
2. More chances for me to play bad
3. His hot new wife (lol)


In NL the World Champion can be all-in pre-flop holding KK and a chimp can be all-in holding AJs. From this point on talent does not matter. Neither does experience, pot odds, tells, implied odds, etc.

Same situation in LIM and all the factors above are still in play. The World Champ can still use all his talent, and win in a number of ways (or cut his losses and fold).

The Chimp knows that his chances of success go down with every new decision point (and even if he doesn't know this, U can bet the World Champ does).

I'm not saying one game is harder or easier, but I do beleive that a very talented player has more chances to shine (with less fatal risk) in LIM verus NL.

For tournaments - I prefer no limit

Ring games - Limit 6max

Although, honestly, my greatest profitability comes from PL Omaha

I prefer No-Limit!!!

I hate the thought not to be able to bet down the odds from your opponant!

But maybe when I learn it correctly I'll change my mind?!

//Ex