Profitability: No Limit vs. Limit

[Bigka79]

i wasnt really sure where to put this post so i decided to post it here in theory because i figured i would get rather one sided answers from either the limit or no limit forums

so what im presenting is a question here do we consider limit or no limit to have a better long run return on investment. Im not asking which you can make more money at necessarily. im saying given a set amount (perhaps 3000$) and equal skill at both forms of poker which could you turn a better ROI% on. Now im also assuming we are sticking to the bankroll cases in that we will not play above the 5/10 limit until we reach 300bb (and likewise buying in for 150 at no limit).

there may be another thread that addresses this but i couldnt find it. that being the case if you could direct me to it that would be great.

[MFpoker]

I'm a newb, but my guess is the NL is slightly more profitable because it's easier to ruin someone's odds with a decent bet, so you have more opportunity to influence expected value for yourself and your opponent. Though I'm guessing that in the higher limits, fixed limit poker approaches the same profitability. dunno though. Whenever I play, I just get sucked out on constantly so I stick to NL.

[winterGT]

I think NL because it attracts more gamblers

[mvdgaag]

NL, like limit gets more profitable with more skill. With limit you reach a ceiling more quickly than with no limit. Given enough skill, NL can be more profitatle.

[Shandrax]

NL can be quite profitable if you know what to do when you face a massive all-in overbet on the river.

[ottsville]

Bigka79 check the beginner's forum...this has been discussed a lot there. Also, I think it's discussed in the poker wiki link in the sticky there.

[SplawnDarts]

The answer is, as usual, that it depends.

Big bet poker (PL and NL) is generally the best venue for a player with a big skill advantage, all else being equal. However, all else is seldom equal.

Big bet usually favors poker "artists" whereas limit favors poker "scientists"

NL is what's played on TV, so it attracts the most low stakes fish

Limit is what's played in the big games (mostly) so it attracts the most whales

NL is often played in a tournament format, where the rising blinds devalue skill and protect the fish

Limit, by virtue of providing fixed drawing odds, protects loose fish

NL, by virtue of having small blinds relative to the money on the table, protects tight fish

Big bet makes it easier to overcome the rake at lower stakes casino games



To answer your question about the $3000, assuming we're playing in Vegas, I would play NL. While it's debatable whether 1/2NL or 5/10L is softer, the primary concern here is the rake. And 1/2 NL definitely makes it easier to overcome the rake. So in your scenario I'd play 1/2 NL during the day at Caesar's - low variance and high win rate. However, one step further up the poker ladder, I would be looking at both NL and L games - 2/4 NL @ Mandalay bay and 8/16 limit at the Bellagio.

[mvdgaag]

SplawnDarts sums it up real well.

[GiantBuddha]

Yeah, nice post Splawn. I think the real key is:

[ QUOTE ]
Big bet usually favors poker "artists" whereas limit favors poker "scientists"

[/ QUOTE ]

Which game plays to your natural abilities? Or if you don't know what those are, which game do you find more interesting? There's fish (and whales) everywhere, you just need to know where to look. The rake is significant, but less so online, especially with RB.

[lengthy]

splawndart FTW! nice post.