[6471849653]

There are good enough games for the non-US players, especially if one is playing them only at best times and picks tables. With a good rakeback/bonus deal the low limit games even from 2-4 to 5-10 are good enough for building experience and bankroll.

One should aim to finally play at 10-20, 15-30 and 20-40 (30-60 is supposed to be an another caliber, maybe because the ordinary people do not play that high), because of the rake and that they are not on regular bases comparatively all that much tougher.

If the US players get out of their ban, like the next year, those games will have more action than they have today, while the low limits at the EU sites might get tighter, but the middle limits will have more action, more tables, some richer hobby or less players on regular bases, more tables to choose from, multitabling - and that's where at least my experience tells me that limit holdem is better as the styles are more the same at limit but that's less so at nl that's additionally more of a people game.

Limit 0.5-1 when they were/are good I ended up playing seven or eight tables. At 1-2 when they were good at Stars I played three and four tables without it being a problem but Stars has a good software for multitabling. I think one loses more money multitabling nl than multitabling limit, but it's compensated by the factor that the rake factor is less of a problem at nl. Also the slowness of betting/action is compensated by there being less betting/action at nl.

Limit holdem full ring and shorthanded nl, maybe they have a similarity as for some experience that I have from shorthanded nl, it does make me think it looks like limit holdem full ring when the shorthanded game is solid (or generally too thinking about the mixture of rocks and unknowns at full ring limit games and think about the lesser amount of information at nl and its higher people game factors - though that as a word is what limit holdem is but that's another thing); when it isn't it's closer to limit holdem shorthanded that's my natural game so I might like the better action shorthanded nl games too; it's just not necessarily what they will most of the time be, and so maybe I play some four handed nl games somewhere in the future, though I don't see it would become popular though there are some of those tables too and one can create such tables, though they will not be like "regular" four handed games then but I suppose they would still offer better action. I will have to try them sometimes.

Many find the shorthanded games clearly more profitable than the full ring games but then there are some who don't make any more per 100 hands playing shorthanded. I have however made it absolutely clear to myself that the less players the more one makes, as long as the relative rake factors and the quality of player factor is the same. To me one shorthanded games is worth as much as two full ring games and I rather play two shorthanded games than four full ring games. I think it's also much about one's natural style, how well one does where ever one is at. Learning an another style of thinking or whatever is an arduous thing, like something unnatural, and I don't know if it's possible and it's often possible to pick whatever one does better at.

As far as speed goes, nl seems as fast as limit holdem when looking at the amount of hands one gets per hour. Then it's just about the fact that one makes less bets and calls at nl, there being more and earlier folding, but then one just gets that same money "faster" at nl, though I am just guessing but there are hard facts of results out there too.

There are far less limit games than there are nl games. One needs to compare the shorthanded limit games to full ring nl games if that's what one plays (they might at this or that site be similarly popular), but if one likes the shorthanded nl games, the things couldn't be better.