why do people play limit hold em?

[BJK]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it mad that you all see limit as a better live game. I live in Ireland and it's almost impossible to find one at all. Yet, you'll find NL games going on everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that one of the biggest reasons for this, as far as I'm concerned, is that I've been stuck at too many no limit tables where there is one guy who always has to stop the action to count the pot, to count his opponent's chip stacks, and to make a decision. More often than not, this guy doesn't even know anything about pot odds anyway. He's just holding up the game, and I prefer prefer a game where I can get in a guaranteed dozen hands an hour.

There is also a reason I forgot to mention as well. In No Limit, a player can gain a certain advantage at times by just being aggressive. In limit, it's all about pot odds. When I play on the internet, there is always at least a couple of other players who know how to calculate pot odds, and that makes the games more difficult to beat. When I play live, I oftentimes go months without seeing a player in a limit game that knows how to calculate pot odds. I forgot to mention it before, but this is a huge reason why I prefer live limit games over no limit games. These games are FUN.

[BJK]

[ QUOTE ]
at the lower levels especially, it can get very annoying playing with ppl who constantly bluff all-in. its nice when you have them crushed, but most of the time you've got something like top pair, and there's no way to know if they've got second pair or two pair, because they play everything from second pair on up exactly the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the players who make NL fun! It only takes one call to bust 'em. Make it a good one

[Hoss1193]

In no particular order, and varying degrees of importance:

1) One of the biggest reasons I haven't seen mentioned yet is that in many casinos, Limit is the only game spread. In my area of western WA, this is the case. Nearest live NLHE game (and it isn't a true NL game; it has a cap, so it's really a big-range spread limit game) is over two hours away.

2) More experience playing limit, therefore much more comfortable in a limit game. A player may be competent at NLHE and will play NL sometimes, but knows he is better at limit, and will play there more often because he knows he has a bigger edge over competition.

3) The games reward different skill sets. I find that many NL players find limit rote/mathematical/formulaic/boring. And the perception is valid for them. Many limit players (myself among them), OTOH, enjoy the small nuances of good limit play which garner a small bet here, a stolen blind there, etc.

Those are my main reasons; game availability, and the fact that when I DO have both choices available (when I'm in Vegas or SoCal), I know I'm a better limit player. My NL forays are mainly restricted to the occasional tournament (which I treat primarily as a change of pace and a learning opportunity) and home NL cash games for very low stakes. Interestingly, I've done quite well in both forums. Am reading NLHTAP & HOH, and will probably make a transition to live NL ring games sometime in the forseeable future...who knows, I might answer this thread completely differently a year from now.

[Hoss1193]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of all that you become a bit of a killer at NL if you learn Limit - I played NL first and then limit, I play a much better NL game since.

[/ QUOTE ]

This caught my attention, would be interested in seeing an expanded discussion of this insight. I myself am a limit player considering a move to NLHE. Might be worth a new thread.

[latefordinner]

I am also considering switching from limit to NL now that I have gone from .50/1 FR to 5/10 and 10/20 SH and am still maintaining about a 2.2BB/hr winrate over 50khands. I originally told myself that as soon as I got 25k hands in limit I would switch to NL, then to stud, then to Omaha, but once I figured out the nuances of limit there was already another level to move up to, etc (and 5/10 SH is certainly not the pinnacle of poker learning by any means). So now after about 150k hands on limit from my first hand in May of 2005 to now I'm ready to switch and see what all the fuss is about.

That being said, I think limit poker can only be played robotically at full ring tables for small stakes. Certainly when you get to 5/10 on up, playing shorthanded, pot odds are much less important than hand reading, image, 2nd level thinking, etc (though the math geeks think of all that stuff in mathematical terms as well wrt game theory, hand ranges, etc.)

just saying, if you think limit is just about figuring out if there is enough money in the pot to call to hit your flush draw on the river, you'll be killed at midstakes games, especially shorthanded.

[Elandriel]

Yeah, i have switched to Limit just a month ago, to learn it in the first place. I think this game is better for me because i too often make a mistake in NL which costs me my entire stack. I'm playing 0,5/1 at the moment and i'm about to go up to 1/2. When is the right time to look for rakeback? I have never tried it and always though that the stakes i play are too low to get money with rakeback.

[DeuceSeven]

I started with SNGs and $25 NL full ring and lost half my deposit. I had a couple of good sessions at live 3/6 and decided to play limit to even out the variance from playing MTTs. After 3000 hands of .25/.50 and doing pretty well, I started playing some NL 6 max cash games. I'm doing pretty well and noticed my play has greatly improved, due in part to playing limit.

I'm still undecided as to which form of cash game I'll play. As for why I like limit:

1. I can play mechanically, helpful when I'm tired from working all day.

2. If I hit a draw on the flop, often times I get the odds to call to the river.

3. As a beginner, I'm not worried about losing my stack to a bad beat.

4. It's fun to jam the pot with 2 overs, nut flush draw, gut shot nut str8 draw and get there.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
I started with SNGs



[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Hey ... Leave SNGs out of this discussion, they are a different beast alltogether

[ QUOTE ]

1. I can play mechanically, helpful when I'm tired from working all day.


[/ QUOTE ]

And on the same note, this applies equally to sng's, they are mindless robotic and very very low variance.

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]

As for why would a good player play limit over no limit? Usually it's because they are uncomfortable with having their stack at risk on every single hand. Limit also allows you to be in the action much more often, be it drawing, betting, and raising. No limit is a game of waiting for a very profitable opportunity and exploiting it to the fullest extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is not a single CORRECT statement in this entire paragraph.

There's not a single NL player who is afraid to bet his stack on a single hand and who IS GOOD.

Playing limit you should play a lot tighter and be "in action" less often than in NL because impled pot odds are not as great, so you'll need to show down the best hand more often on average.

[Lawman]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing limit you should play a lot tighter and be "in action" less often than in NL because impled pot odds are not as great, so you'll need to show down the best hand more often on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an important point often overlooked. Poor/inexperienced limit players play too many hands and go too far with them on the basis that it won't cost much to see the flop or the next card etc. (death by a thousand leaks)

The big difference in NL is that (generally) preflop bets are small relative to stack sizes and that "getting lucky" on the flop can result in you winning a large amount. Another difference is the ability to manipulate pot/bet sizes. You simply can't do that in limit.