NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit players

[AKQJ10]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing LHE against idiots is insanely profitable. It is, however, high-variance. (On second reading, i'm not sure if the "you" here refers explicitly to the OP. If so, you're right: that's the reason he chooses not to play in that game.)

Of course your mention of controlling the odds is substantially correct (I didn't bother reading the numbers) and a NLHE player has a bigger advantage than a LHE player over equally bad players who chase any draw. But there's no guarantee the fish will continue to voluntarily give up so much edge by playing NLHE forever, and as long as there are fish in the high-variance limit games, those games will still be wildly profitable.

If you would turn down a high-EV high-variance game to play a marginal-EV lower-variance game (e.g., if NLHE didn't have so many fish), then you probably need to work up more bankroll.

[cbayly12]

I was a NL cash game player and found that playing 3/6NL and 5/10NL, it hurt my bankroll when a idiot calls an all in with a squadoosh flush draw and hitting it for my stack, and I'll admit it is hard for me to abide by the 5% Bankroll rule. Sometimes I get out of hand and jump to higher stakes, but hey I'm working on it. For about the last month or so I've changed my game to shorthanded limit, and it is far better to play 10/20 limit with a $10,000 than to play 2/4NL with a $10,000 bankroll. Shorthanded limit is a great game, because on average you have maybe 2 to 3 people in before the flop and the pot odds don't justify a loose call with to few players in a hand. My stomach ulsers are now gone because it hurt to have 2 bad sessions in NL and loose 2K and now I don't mind when the fish chase because I may only lose 3 bets. So personally I'm very glad limit hasn't "dried" up. Why do you think Sklansky plays limit cash games? Sometimes it is hard to handle the beats in NL. I still enjoy NL tourneys and SnGs, but SHORTHANDED LIMIT CASHGAMES is way to easy to pass up, and way easier on my stomach..lol. Also for me personally going on TILT in limit seems to be almost impossible..I now laugh when I get outdrawn on because I think how much I could have lost if I were playing NL.

[monkover]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing LHE against idiots is insanely profitable. It is, however, high-variance. (On second reading, i'm not sure if the "you" here refers explicitly to the OP. If so, you're right: that's the reason he chooses not to play in that game.)

Of course your mention of controlling the odds is substantially correct (I didn't bother reading the numbers) and a NLHE player has a bigger advantage than a LHE player over equally bad players who chase any draw. But there's no guarantee the fish will continue to voluntarily give up so much edge by playing NLHE forever, and as long as there are fish in the high-variance limit games, those games will still be wildly profitable.

If you would turn down a high-EV high-variance game to play a marginal-EV lower-variance game (e.g., if NLHE didn't have so many fish), then you probably need to work up more bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]



I was talking about him not about everybody

[doh742]

I think its a very simple answer. Variance. In the long run, I would rather play no limit, and get all my money in when I have the best of it. The reason I stick to limit is because I don't have the long run bank roll. All that needs to happen to reduce me to 50 c 1 $ tables is one idiot to call an all in with aces with king queen and stack me. Or chase a gut shot. In short, in NL I can be crippled by one lucky call. In limit, to get crippled, I have to be consistently outplayed over the course of hours.

That is why limit survives. Not everyone has a NL bankroll to play with. Volatility, plain and simple.

If I know I am better than my oppenents, I would like to take a little more time to get there money, than give them a chance to catch once and take my entire stack. It is much more likely that a bad player gets me in nl than in limit.

Just my humble thoughts.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
In short, in NL I can be crippled by one lucky call. In limit, to get crippled, I have to be consistently outplayed over the course of hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true! In LHE you can be drawn out on over the course of hours. The variance in LHE is huge, with 100+ big bet downswings commonplace. You won't lose five buyins in ten hands, though, and that may be what you meant.

I've seen opinions both ways, but I think I agree with the CW that bankroll requirements are less at NLHE. (Of course there's the problem of how to compare stakes; I don't mean that $1-2 blinds NLHE equates to $2-4 limit!) However, the psychological aspect is much as you say.

[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

[Beermantm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In short, in NL I can be crippled by one lucky call. In limit, to get crippled, I have to be consistently outplayed over the course of hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true! In LHE you can be drawn out on over the course of hours. The variance in LHE is huge, with 100+ big bet downswings commonplace. You won't lose five buyins in ten hands, though, and that may be what you meant.

I've seen opinions both ways, but I think I agree with the CW that bankroll requirements are less at NLHE. (Of course there's the problem of how to compare stakes; I don't mean that $1-2 blinds NLHE equates to $2-4 limit!) However, the psychological aspect is much as you say.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming your opponents fold I take it because when they call a ton on you in NL you can get stacked over and over again also. I've played 600 or 700 hands in one sitting at one table in NL Holdem and watched people draw out the whole night and if they were not drawing out they were flopping the nuts. Maybe the limits you are playing at count in NL since you expect your opponent to fold more often than you see in the lower 100 NL games. When the calling is rampant then NL makes me cry. When they fold alot NL is Golden. I think it all has to do with who you are playing against be it Limit or NL. The edge on either is hard to tell though as you will tend to showdown more hands in Limit and moderate value hands can win against the right opponents and be forced to throw away those holding in NL. Seriously arguing the Edge has been going on forever and in my view it's limit that holds the greater edge if you can crack out those extra bets it's so profitable. I would love to see concrete evidence though of long term winning in both starting with the same bankrolls and playing the limits that fit the bankrolls.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
You are assuming your opponents fold I take it because when they call a ton on you in NL you can get stacked over and over again also.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm really just passing on some conventional wisdom I'm not 100% sure of.

But I think the theoretical point is that the donkeys who draw out in NLHE are making a bigger mistake to do so, thus it takes less time for their big mistakes to catch up with them. That might affect EV more than variance, though; I haven't really thought through it.

I've certainly shared your experience of getting drawn out on all night. In some ways it's worse in NLHE because you try to trap the aggressive guy when you pick up AA, but he flops a flush with JTs and takes your stack because you're not letting him get away with representing a flush!*

You probably can induce more players to fold in NLHE, but you should be thinking about getting them to call wrongly more than getting them to fold unless they're so weak-tight that getting them to fold wrongly is easier.

*TVBBS