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.
|