Re: Limit Holdem can only be profitable with high stakes vs. no limit ?
 

It depends on your winrate...if you can beat the game for 3BB/100 hands then playing 3-6 limit will get you about 10-15$/hour playing 1 table. However, I do not think you would be able to beat 3-6 limit for 3BB/100, and I would be surprised if you were a winning player at these limits at all.

Re: Limit Holdem can only be profitable with high stakes vs. no limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[z]LHE is must more swingier than NLHE
[x]low limit NLHE is very much more beatable than mid/high stakes
[x]mid/high stakes is much more swingy than grinding against "chasers"

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you say all this, is this really true?

also I plan on playing 1 table online for now, so what stakes should I be playing Limit Holdem to make it around $10-$15/hour anyone know?

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly.. if you are asking this question, it is probably a level you arent beating any time soon.

Re: Limit Holdem can only be profitable with high stakes vs. no limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[z]LHE is must more swingier than NLHE
[x]low limit NLHE is very much more beatable than mid/high stakes
[x]mid/high stakes is much more swingy than grinding against "chasers"

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you say all this, is this really true?

also I plan on playing 1 table online for now, so what stakes should I be playing Limit Holdem to make it around $10-$15/hour anyone know?

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly.. if you are asking this question, it is probably a level you arent beating any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very helpful reply Ice.

I can't answer all 3 [x]s. But to answer the first LHE is a lot more swingy then Nl because people are likely to be getting the right odds to chase theirs draws, and therefore people will be chasing all the way to the river and will suck out on you more often.

Re: Limit Holdem can only be profitable with high stakes vs. no limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it correct to say that if I really want to make some good real cash playing Limit holdem I have to play the medium/high stakes were you won't get that many chases to river and lose to bad beats less often? (get what I am saying, its almost impossible to win at the low stakes .25/.50 or 1/2 so many callers & chases)


[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking from a ton of experience across micro to mid-stakes, you can certainly beat the hell out of the lowest games. Of course you can make more at higher stakes, but it requires more experience and skill. I promise you: the lower the stakes, the higher the possible winrate (in terms of bets per 100 hands, not in terms of dollars).

You cannot say micro-stakes are unbeatable due to heavy chasers and fishy play; these guys are the easiest to beat and require a lot of patience in limit hold'em.

Re: Limit Holdem can only be profitable with high stakes vs. no limit
 

Also, for a good player, limit hold'em has more 'swings' than NLHE, because your edge against fish is restricted by the betting structure. In limit you beat up the fish for 3-4 big bets at a time; in NLHE, you beat them up for a stack at a time.

Re: Limit Holdem can only be profitable with high stakes vs. no limit
 

ok, so which has much more swings, Pot Limit Omaha or Limit Holdem?

Re: Limit Holdem can only be profitable with high stakes vs. no limit
 

I haven't played too much PLO, but the limit structure will always restrict a strong, winning player, because big mistakes by fish are just much less costly compared to NL/PL.

Re: Limit Holdem can only be profitable with high stakes vs. no limit
 

isn't Limit Holdem more mathematically simple straight forward than no limit holdem and pot limit omaha?