NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit players
 

I have long felt that something Bob Ciaffone wrote years ago should be written in stone letters, 10 feet tall (or more): "A good player's overlay (i.e., advantage, edge) at pot-limit and no-limit is much greater than at limit play because he has far more tools available" (Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker, p. 74).

Now, I don't care to bother to compare and contrast the skills required for either game (please no!), but is there any compelling reason to believe that nl does not get one as far away as is possible from a hand-holding contest? I started out by learning limit both because there were far more games available and many more well-written books detailing how to play better than the competition, but since learning nl some time back cannot imagine ever again sitting around, waiting to be outdrawn by players to whom the limit betting structure allows five full rounds for luck (multiplied by however many opponents in a given hand) to shine on their miserable posteriors.

If nl maximizes the good player's edge, why hasn't limit dried up and blown away in the three years since televised nl tournaments--coupled with the policy of the maximum buy-in in nl cash games--brought the nl cash game back back from the dead?

I would love to know whether my intution and Ciaffone's confirmation are not entirely correct. Discuss!

Re: NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit play
 

[ QUOTE ]
If nl maximizes the good player's edge, why hasn't limit dried up and blown away in the three years since televised nl tournaments--coupled with the policy of the maximum buy-in in nl cash games--brought the nl cash game back back from the dead?

[/ QUOTE ]

Additional data points:
<ul type="square">[*]No-limit poker hasn't "dried up and blown away" in the face of chess, even though chess has been around for years and involves far less dumb luck than no-limit poker. A good chess player has a virtually insurmountable edge over a fish over the course of say ten games.[*]Slots haven't "dried up and blown away" in the face of poker, not even slot tournaments, even though slots are pure luck.[/list]
People like to gamble. They also like to think they're good at games of skill being played on TV that fool them into thinking they're decent, which is why NLHE has had a resurgence. You seem to be viewing things exclusively from the perspective of the shark, but it isn't the shark who decides what games people play. It's just a happy accident that the fish wants to give the shark a bigger advantage these days because of NLHE on TV.

Re: Ciaffone, the detail left out is that learning to use more tools means it's harder to become a "good player". Of course it's all relative, and during the poker boom becoming good relative to the influx of fish hasn't been all that hard. For that matter, as you've tacitly acknowledged, limit poker requires a good deal of skill too, but different skills (pushing small edges, etc.).

"coupled with the policy of the maximum buy-in in nl cash games" -- you do understand that this makes NLHE more like limit, right? I would argue that it's helped NLHE capture a middle ground where people want to feel like they're playing the big-boy poker game without actually putting thousands at risk on a hand, and that may have been your point.

My point is, limit poker keeps the fish donating longer and will always have some viability, although NLHE has certainly made a dent.

Re: NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit play
 

OP,

I would suggest reading Mason's Poker Essays, where he discusses this and other similarly interesting topics comparing different games. The above post is pretty good.

For games to run, they require players. The most important players to the health of the games are bad players. If they are in a game, the good players will come. If they aren't, then the good players will leave, looking for games elsewhere. (It is also the case that if good players have little edge over bad players then they will move on, but in LHE and capped buyin NL this is far from the case)

In NLHE, especially deep stack, the good players have a HUGE edge over the bad players. This results in very few winning sessions for the bad players. If they virtually never win, they won't play. In fact I agree with Mason, that if casinos go to unrestricted buyin NL cash games, they will dry up.

Limit games are unlikely to die out because bad players win often enough.

Also, you should see Mason's discussion in the publisher's note of the magazine. Note: link may change, you want the December issue.

Re: NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit play
 

Excellent! My favorite answer is that limit allows people the illusion they can play at "limited" risk (pun intended). Naturally, my asking why limit hasn't gone away entirely was facetious, as I realize that even games which HAVE "dried up and blown away" took years, decades to so do (see draw poker). The chess analogy, however, does seem like comparing apples and oranges--yes, I know they are both games, but then so is hockey and there is no reason to believe that a new poker form would replace an entirely different game just because both are games.

I probably really wanted to get at why good players let themselves in for so much psychological brutality--bad beats are not fun and the energy deployed philosophizing about "in the long term..." and "over time..." etc. doesn't seem worth it to me anymore. I mean, why hate even a single second of your job if you don't have to? Even by the time I had moved "up" to 4-8 limit I considered the prospect of playing a 1-2 limit game akin to dental surgery without an anaesthetic. Yes, I realize that, "in the long term, I'm the one making money from my more consistently correct decisions," and that "over time, they're paying me as a result of making -EV decisions." It's just that, with the tidal wave of newbies who think they've learned about NL hold 'em from watching heavily edited, 6-person final tables on the Travel Channel, I can barely think of a rationale to willingly subject myself to the bad old days of watching half-wits make even so much as a shekl at my expense by playing like fools. Just venting!

Thanks for your outstanding reply.

Re: NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit play
 

Chess would dry up and blow away if it could only be played for money. I used to play chess for money and all the fish realized they were fish and left. And then because they left, I was the new fish and I left.

Re: NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I probably really wanted to get at why good players let themselves in for so much psychological brutality--bad beats are not fun and the energy deployed philosophizing about "in the long term..." and "over time..." etc. doesn't seem worth it to me anymore. I mean, why hate even a single second of your job if you don't have to? Even by the time I had moved "up" to 4-8 limit I considered the prospect of playing a 1-2 limit game akin to dental surgery without an anaesthetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dislike it that much, you probably shouldn't play. Seriously.

But there's a lot of truth to what you're saying. If I can play a game with more edge and less variance, I'm going to. Over the past couple of years I've been migrating from LHE to NLHE as my bread and butter for this reason.

But if people decide they want to play limit HORSE insntead, I'll learn that.

Re: NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit play
 

Is it just me, or is it a lot easier to take the bad beats in limit where you only lose the pot plus an extra bet on the river? In no limit, you get stacked. In fact, the beats in no limit are so much worse because by sizing your bets, you give your opponents the opportunity to make bigger mistakes than they can in limit. When someone hits a gutshot on you in limit, half the time it's not even a bad beat; they were probably getting 15:1. In no limit, a gutshot's more often a bad beat. Personally, bad beats don't bother me that much. Bad beats come from mistakes in your opponent's play. Your edge comes from mistakes in your opponent's play. I actually get worried when my opponents stop showing me bad beats, because it means the game's bad. I get upset when I make mistakes, whether I win the hand or not.

But yeah, no limit's great, although I'm sure we'll see significant changes in the way it's played over the next five years. At some point maybe we'll even see some new game take over holdem in popularity, although I doubt it'll be pineapple.

Re: NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit play
 

the reason might be that there isnt a hole lot of nl literature out there

Re: NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit play
 

[ QUOTE ]

If nl maximizes the good player's edge, why hasn't limit dried up and blown away in the three years since televised nl tournaments--coupled with the policy of the maximum buy-in in nl cash games--brought the nl cash game back back from the dead?


[/ QUOTE ]


The reason why it hasn´t dried up is imo quite obvious:
It is for the exact reason why you don´t play limit HE against idiots and why the idiots like to play it. They realize thet their chance to win is bigger so they stick with limit and kepp trying to draw out on others. If they try the same strategy at NLHE they will get pushed out of the pots or they would not get nearly the right pot odds.

Here´s anexample:

1) You´re playing 0,5/1 dollar limit he:
On the flop: 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] j [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

hero: AJ o
villain: KQ 0

Now The pot is contested heads up. this will rarely
happen at this kind of limit. Let´s assume there is 2
dollars in the pot. ( you raised preflop from the small
the donk calls because he´s got a king and Queen and
that´s really cool or that´s the way he thinks.)He
doesn´t hit on the flop
but he still calls your 50 c bet on the flop because he
thinks he´s still going to hit his king or Queen. The
pot odds
he´s getting are 1 to 5 ( 50 c bet to win 2,50) and he
has 6 outs (3 kings and 3 Queens) He obviously doesn´t
even think about this. To justify a call with the odds
he´s getting from the pot a 37 c bet would be the maximum
he could call to break even in the long run. So his play
play is - 13c EV.


2) Now the secand example from NLHE:

You´re playing 0,5/1 dollar limit he:
On the flop: 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] j [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

hero: AJ o
villain: KQ 0

Let´s assume that for some reason the same 2 dollar pot
as in the first example was created. Now the donk still
thinks the same way, I got KQ and that´s still looks
and I´ll call anyway. The only difference this time is
that you´ll make a bet 3/4 the size of the pot. In this
case you are cutting is odds dramatically: He´s getting
1,75 to 2,50 pot odds and has the same 6 outs as in the
first case. This means that he can still only call a bet
of 37 c and break even in the long run. So this call is
- 1,38 dollars EV


So if you compare the first case to the second one you will easily see the difference:
1) you gain 13 c from the call by the donk (in the long run)
2) you gain 1,38 dollars

This is imo the main difference between LHE and NLHE, you can cut the opponents odds in NLHE and gain way more with the same hand as in LHE.

cheers

Re: NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit players
 

I am certainly no poker expert - I've read a lot of the recommended books but I need longer to get a true feel for the game. I play micro-limit poker and occasional NL SnG's &amp; MTT's. I did try the low NL games and was often successful but also often got stacked. I did not have a large number of played games to go on but it seemed to me that I might have lost my bankroll while I was learning the ropes if I had continued in nl cash games. One of the main lessons I've learn't from the books is to avoid going broke and so I am sticking to limit for at least until my knowledge and bankroll are big enough.

[ QUOTE ]
If nl maximizes the good player's edge, why hasn't limit dried up and blown away in the three years since televised nl tournaments

[/ QUOTE ]

There is probably some sort of equilibrium between how much a game punishes beginners and how many people would be willing to play. I think that cash nl learns too far toward the expert and if it wasn't for the TV coverage it would attract a lot fewer players. If fish move into a game in large numbers then this reduces the proportion of sharks they play with and like in nature protects them to some extent. As the fish are eaten up or grow into sharks new fish are needed to keep the game healthy and personally I think that the amount of new fish will dry up to some extent and increase the shark/fish ratio and hence reduce the number playing nl. Limit will also suffer from this but to a lesser extent and so I think limit rather than dissapear will regain some ground in the future.

With Hold'em I love the balance between skill and chance produced from the two hold cards and 5 known community cards and any change here would reduce the beauty of the game, but perhaps in the future a different betting structure will appear with a suitable balance for both fish and sharks to co-exist.