NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit players

[Former Spank E]

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.

[gull]

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.

[AKQJ10]

[ 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.

[GiantBuddha]

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.

[skillzilla]

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

[BaseMetal]

I do agree that that NL probably favours the expert but I am not sure your reasoning about the bad-beats is true. As someone in an earlier post mentioned you actually should look for tables were bad-beats happen as people are playing poorly. The thing I would like to add is that have you considered that you may just be not noticing your bad-beats at NL. How often have you wondered whether that "dozo" has got trips when he puts you all-in when you have top pair, if you call him you either feel elated or gutted but if you fold you have possibly been subject to a hidden bad beat from somebody who just doesn't know how to play properly. These folds are probably psychologically less damaging than visibly losing to 72o after pummelling away with the small limit bets.
Each to his own - if you are a winner and enjoying NL then be happy.
I accept that I will often lose from an early lead and so find limit enjoyable and profitable, in my micro world.
Good luck, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, may you find many tables were bad-beats occasionally happen,
Cheers,
Basemetal