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

Hello all,

I didn't know where to post this, please explain my question:

Many have said that no limit holdem is more profitable then limit but also you will have much higher swings than in limit.

I found limit holdem to be a much better ring game than in no limit because you are playing with the odds in your favor so you win in the longrun and also if you suffer a bad beat or lose to margianl hand you don't lose much so its less risk less swings.

For me I prefer no limit holdem Sit&Go's at UltimateBet (so many fish) because I like playing aggresive since I can only lose my buyin and tournament chips and not real cash chips like in ring games.

So refering to my question I find that playing micro or small stakes Limit holdem will not really win enough cash for someone who wants to make it as a part time job.

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)

Also I don't know so can someone tell me what is the average/good win rate playing Limit Holdem? (I think its BB/H not sure)

Thank you

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

This belongs in the beginners forum. There are a bunch of mistakes in there. Lots of bad poker thinking. If someone else wants to address them they are free to. I'll do one.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to play the medium/high stakes were you won't get that many chases to river and lose to bad beats

[/ QUOTE ]

Chasers are how you make money in limit. Putting money in while behind and not getting proper odds to draw = profit for good players. If they weren't chasing us and they were folding correctly there wouldn't be much money to make, eh? And you can do fine in smaller stakes for side income assuming you're talking about online play. Multitabling 2/4 is pretty profitable for a good player. In fact, lots of players have a higher winrate playing 6 2/4 tables than they would playing 4 4/8 or 5/10 tables. That is just an example.

Of course, unless you commit to learning limit figuring out which limit is the most profitable won't be a problem for you. Limit is, IMO, more difficult to learn and play effectively on a day to day basis than NL. The transition for somebody who is knows NL is usually pretty brutal.

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

[ QUOTE ]
This belongs in the beginners forum. There are a bunch of mistakes in there. Lots of bad poker thinking. If someone else wants to address them they are free to. I'll do one.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to play the medium/high stakes were you won't get that many chases to river and lose to bad beats

[/ QUOTE ]

Chasers are how you make money in limit. Putting money in while behind and not getting proper odds to draw = profit for good players. If they weren't chasing us and they were folding correctly there wouldn't be much money to make, eh? And you can do fine in smaller stakes for side income assuming you're talking about online play. Multitabling 2/4 is pretty profitable for a good player. In fact, lots of players have a higher winrate playing 6 2/4 tables than they would playing 4 4/8 or 5/10 tables. That is just an example.

Of course, unless you commit to learning limit figuring out which limit is the most profitable won't be a problem for you. Limit is, IMO, more difficult to learn and play effectively on a day to day basis than NL. The transition for somebody who is knows NL is usually pretty brutal.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by IMO and also why is the transition pretty brutual from NL to Limit holdem?

*I am refering to playing limit online not live.

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

In Winning Small Stakes Hold 'em , Miller, Malmuth & Sklansky imply that if you play the way they recommend in their book, you will "do much better than minimum wage" (p. 93). Furthermore, in the introductory section written by Sklansky and titled "Why This Book," he states that the "poker explosion has made smaller games become a more viable way to win good money.... Making $50,000 per year playing $3-$6 hold 'em is now no big deal. As for the 'brick and mortar' cardrooms, there are now a lot more bad players than ever before" (pp. 2-3).

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

IMO = in my opinion, ldo....

ldo= like duh obviously

What I know about the transition is purely anecdotal. I never did it myself and I'm not going to repeat what I have been told many times. Just do a search. Or hope someone else comes by that can give you definitive info.