Is Limit Hold 'em Dead?

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
A question for you though: I have often read that NL has less variance. That seems counterintuitive. I mean, one poorly played hand could see you get stacked. One stroke of bad luck could do the same. I would have thought that variance would be greater in NL.

[/ QUOTE ]
I used to think the same thing, with the same reasoning, but what that really says is that your best/worst per hand wins/losses are greater. Usually variance refers to the standard deviation of BB/100 or BB/hr. But first, you need to determine which stakes are comparable between LHE and NLHE. (I asked this in a post awhile back.) So what I think people are really saying is that if you for a given pair of LHE/NLHE stakes, your SD(BB/100) will be greater for NL.

[andyfox]

I also seem to remember Mason saying that he felt limit was a tougher game. Maybe it's that I'm stricktly a limit player, but it seems to me no-limit if far more complicated. Speaking to a seasoned pro the other day, I asked if she was playing much no-limit. She told me she's getting close to retirement and finds that the game requires too much concentration for her at this stage of her life. One mistake, one thing missed, and the whole week is a disaster. Whereas in limit, she can relax more. I think that in itself makes no-limit more difficult.

On variance: they play a $2,000 buy-in 20/40 blinds no limit game at Commerce. When I play 40-80, I buy in for $2,000. A famous pro in the no limit game told me he had dropped $33,000 in his two previous sessions and was still up for the month.

[andyfox]

I think that for a lot of good players, discussing limit poker becomes boring after a while. Plus their thinking is at a higher level than the rest of us, so they aren't getting much out of the forum, thus they don't fequent it much; or they've moved up to higher stakes and/or no limit.

[bigbootch]

BTW, I see that your name is in the book. Nice.

Could you point me to where in the book this is? I just bought the book, haven't worked through it yet, but would like to look up the reference. Thanks.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that for a lot of good players, discussing limit poker becomes boring after a while. Plus their thinking is at a higher level than the rest of us, so they aren't getting much out of the forum, thus they don't fequent it much; or they've moved up to higher stakes and/or no limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, discussing limit poker is boring to me, but I seemed to have missed this part about thinking at a higher level.

[threeducks]

Interesting - I emailed Jim Brier yesterday with some questions. Part of his reply was
[ QUOTE ]
"In my current article in CardPlayer I have observed that middle limit games seem to be drying up since all the new players are playing no limit." Jim Brier

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not read the rest of the thread yet. My reply was that I played NL $200 for 9 months last year and although I did well I do not like the game. Too slow and everyone is out to trap you for your stack - I think that pot limit (ring)is a better game than limit and NL.

For me, it seems to be easier to lose your stack with AA than it is to double up. JMO FWIW.

[andyfox]

I probably shouldn't have said "than the rest of us." But a lot of great posters who used to post here (El Diablo, Clarkmeister, SKP, Backdoor, Colean, Snakehead, to name just a few that come readily to mind) were certainly on a higher level than I was and am. My point was that they might well have thought that they weren't getting as much out of the forum as they were giving.

Another point is that a lot of top notch posters are not professional players and their interest in poker and/or poker/posting might wane from time to time.

[SackUp]

good thing we split the forums.

[SA125]

Once you start playing NL seriously you realize that Izmet was on the money with a point he made about limit in the early stages of 2+2.

On the subject of making big laydowns in limit games, he said something to the effect of the guy who makes the calls ends up banging the lights out of beautful women and buying fur coats for them. While the guy making the big laydowns ends up buying lunch for his buddy. You realize the question of whether or not to call a bet on the river in any decent sized pot in limit is many times beyond ridiculous.

The catastrophic fold in limit is true. Like Andy's 77 hand where he made the river call.

To continue with bottom or middle pair on the flop in NL, instead of having to call the 1 SB like in limit, having to call a 3/4 to a pot sized bet to continue is frequently the case. Huge difference for the peeling crowd of check callers.

[Renaud Desferet]

Nl and Limit river decisions are not comparable. Namely, the air factor is inexistent in limit when facing 9-1 decisions. Also, when facing those decisions a lot of information did circulate through betting actions. The range of an opponent can be quite narrow on the river, even aginst tough opponents, and that's why those "tough" folds can be very profitable.