limit vs nlh
 

it seams to me limit is how most pros make a living on line.
is that the case?

Re: limit vs nlh
 

No.

Re: limit vs nlh
 

Welcome to 2004.

Re: limit vs nlh
 

Most of us who started at limit are cursing the day. NLHE would have made me a lot more money and saved me a lot of headaches.
It's even worse when you try to switch because of everyone telling you how easy it is, and then you find out you suck. (Okay, I'm in the minority here, a TON of limit players have started playing NL with success.)

Re: limit vs nlh
 

Firstly I will say that I am a consistant winner playing limit but am not a winning player at NL ring yet so you may take this as sour grapes however I hear so much crap about how much better no limit is than limit and I really can't see why.

To me limit is much easier to multi table and you dont get into positions where you spend hours building a big stack only to lose it all in one hand when when your AA loses to a suckout, be it KK turning into a set etc.. To me that is much more frustrating than not being able to bet people of pots in limit.

Another issue is when people quote win rates for no limit they say 5bigblinds/100 etc, well if you play $100NL that is $5/100 right? whilst risking the $100 buy in, if you compare that to $2-4 limit and starting with $100 with a win rate of 2.5bigbets/100 you are making $10/100 am I missing something here? To achieve a similar win rate in no limit you would have to be playing 200NL and therefore risking twice the money for the same return.

Is my logic flawed?

Re: limit vs nlh
 

[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah this pretty much sums it up. now that there are ample middle and upper limit NL games, more and more people are playing NL. 2 years ago the biggest NL on party was 2/4 with a $200 cap

Re: limit vs nlh
 

i make 25 bucks an hour off a 1k roll at limit. Is that possible at NL. I do not play NL but have always wondered what the difference in wage is. Like donkey says there are nuances that are not taken into account. If all you play is 1 table you might be better off at NL, but if you are multi-tabling with a small roll, you might be better off at limit.

Re: limit vs nlh
 

There are still hundreds of pros who make their living playing limit only, and many of them enjoy the fact that rakeback for them is much larger than in no limit.

Re: limit vs nlh
 

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly I will say that I am a consistant winner playing limit but am not a winning player at NL ring yet so you may take this as sour grapes however I hear so much crap about how much better no limit is than limit and I really can't see why.

To me limit is much easier to multi table and you dont get into positions where you spend hours building a big stack only to lose it all in one hand when when your AA loses to a suckout, be it KK turning into a set etc.. To me that is much more frustrating than not being able to bet people of pots in limit.

Another issue is when people quote win rates for no limit they say 5bigblinds/100 etc, well if you play $100NL that is $5/100 right? whilst risking the $100 buy in, if you compare that to $2-4 limit and starting with $100 with a win rate of 2.5bigbets/100 you are making $10/100 am I missing something here? To achieve a similar win rate in no limit you would have to be playing 200NL and therefore risking twice the money for the same return.

Is my logic flawed?

[/ QUOTE ]

5 PTBB/100 is actually 10x the big bet, or $10/100 hands at 100NL. And while sure, your whole stack of $100 is at risk, it is widely agreed that there is less variance in no limit. (The long run can be a very long time for a limit player.) And I dont think you can compare 2/4 limit with 100NL for an hourly rate comparison, apples and oranges. (Though, yes, in terms of bankroll req's, 2/4 and 100NL are similar)

By the way...who's running at 2.5 BB these days and playing 2/4 or higher? (Not too many) I think 5PTBB/100 is a much more dependable number.

Re: limit vs nlh
 

[ QUOTE ]
many of them enjoy the fact that rakeback for them is much larger than in no limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying you are wrong, but this does not make a whole hell of a lot of sense. I mean, I guess there is som psychic comfort in a nice RB payment, but still.

Re: limit vs nlh
 

so for 1/2 limit SH you need a 1k roll and if you make 2bb/100 you are making $4/100. A limit player can play 600 hands an hour(6tables) so that's $16 + decent rb an hour. About 25 an hour.

I don't play NL but i guess it is harder to 6 table NL short then it is to 6 table Limit short. So say 5 tables gets you $15 plus less RB. Is that about 18 to 20 an hour? I've never played NL other then for casual purposes. anyone have some info on 50nl wages with their rb?

Re: limit vs nlh
 

[ QUOTE ]
(Though, yes, in terms of bankroll req's, 2/4 and 100NL are similar)

[/ QUOTE ]
20 buys in properly rolled for NL (2k at 100NL. 300bb is properly rolled for limit $1,200 at 2/4).

IMO anyhow... probably a little bigger for limit if shorthanded.

Re: limit vs nlh
 

So what you are saying is that the winrate is comparable between $2-4 Limit and $100NL. I have run at 3.5BB/100 over the last 20,000 hands playing $2-4 so it must be positive variance right? and I am still not convinced that no limit has less variance than limit, has anyone got statistical data to prove this? I am not trying to start an argument I just feel that the times I have played NL there seems to be huge swings in my bankroll, wouldn't this indicate an increase in variance or is it just a function of my no limit play.

Re: limit vs nlh
 

From what i have gathered from other posters:

the variance in short samples for NL can be bigger. But after 20k hands an NL winrate should be close to what will be the next 20k hands. Limit however, you can play 20k hands at 3.5bb/100 and play the next 20khands at .9bb/100. Some limit players will have 2 100k hand samples that vary considerably sometimes. Can't really tell if that is a change in play/game softness unless it's within a short time span probably.

Re: limit vs nlh
 

[ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying is that the winrate is comparable between $2-4 Limit and $100NL. I have run at 3.5BB/100 over the last 20,000 hands playing $2-4 so it must be positive variance right? and I am still not convinced that no limit has less variance than limit, has anyone got statistical data to prove this? I am not trying to start an argument I just feel that the times I have played NL there seems to be huge swings in my bankroll, wouldn't this indicate an increase in variance or is it just a function of my no limit play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought NL made significantly more, but I'm beginning to think that it's fairly close. Just anecdotally, when I look at the BBV graphs, the big $$ are most often put up by the NL players. (Even at modest stakes) Could be biased however.

As for the comment about multitabling each, based on my own limited experience with NL, I personally think it is easier to multitable NL.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(Though, yes, in terms of bankroll req's, 2/4 and 100NL are similar)

[/ QUOTE ]
20 buys in properly rolled for NL (2k at 100NL. 300bb is properly rolled for limit $1,200 at 2/4).

IMO anyhow... probably a little bigger for limit if shorthanded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, The gold standard for shorthanded is 500BB.