[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

P.S. I prefer limit donkaments. Insert spirited defense of limit here!

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but can I ask why? Maybe there's a facet that I'm missing. The thing I don't like about limit tournaments is that getting a good hand early is less valuable than it is later. This is true also in NL/PL, but to a smaller margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that limit tournaments better reward consistent play. You have to play lots of hands to advance instead of waiting for double-up situations. (Maybe I'm just an action junkie.)

Limit tournaments also generally allow more play before stack size becomes a crucial issue. Most NL tournaments are chronically short-stacked compared to their cash game equivalents. So although many of the same tournament considerations apply, you get to play the "real" game instead of a short-stacked version. (This of course doesn't apply to a deep-stack NL event.) Even when stacks get short there is usually room for more than a push-or-fold strategy.

The ability to go all-in also negates some of the skilled player's advantage over other players. Once there are no more decisions to be made, your opponent cannot make any further mistakes. (Except in draw, of course, but in TD the opponent also gets the equity from draws he normally wouldn't make--- like seeing all 5 cards in HE.) You can't Kill Phil in limit.

Finally, limit gives the skilled player more play. He can't stack an opponent, sure, but neither is he out of the tournament after getting all the money in as a 90/10 favorite and catching a disastrous river card.

(It may well be the case that NL/PL is actually more worthwhile for a professional player, but as a recreational player I prefer more play and think that I do better in that sort of environment.)