Is no limit really better for good players than limit?

[hezster]

The conventional wisdom is that big bet poker is more profitable with less variabce than limit poker - I'm here to challenge that assertion. Now, this may be true for old-fashioned uncapped no-limit poker. And, it may be true for deeper stack capped poker that you find online, at higher limits, or even lower limits outside California. But, for those of us who are subjected to the severe restricted buy-in games in Southern California, I'm really not sure this is the case.

I've been a winning limit holdem player for a couple of years and I thought I would try the switch to no-limit after hearing how soft the games are. I initially had success at the $100 (33 1/3 BB) and $200 (40 BB) games but I've recently gone through a rough downswing (at least rough for me). Now, maybe it's just variance. I have been quite unlucky (BBV disclaimer: 3 for 14 on hands at 50% favorite or better when all the money went in, 2 of last 4 sessions include one where I got three full houses and lost every time, another where I flopped two pair three times and lost to three flopped straights). Or, maybe I'm just not as good as I think I am. But this stretch has made me think about the dynamics of the game I am playing.

In these restricted games, it seems you have to play very tight until you can double up once or twice, unless you can find a game where limping is the norm. In my last couple of sessions where pre-flop raises occurred probably >40% of the time, my VPIP was about 10-15%. Maybe I just was getting a bad run of cards, but let me tell you, it's no fun to play that way. Perhaps the answer is to execute better game selection and find a game with more limping.

Anyways, it seems that any game in which the outcome of two or three hands over the course of a 4-8 hour session determines the fate of that session is more prone to luck than a game like limit where the aggregate of post-flop play over many hands will separate the winners from the losers.

As for me, I think I'm going to go back to Omaha8 where I feel I have the biggest edge, build my bankroll, and then perhaps try the $300 (60 BB) or $500 (100 BB) game where there is more post-flop play.

Thoughts, suggestions?

[MyTurn2Raise]

the best game is the one in which your edge over the table is the biggest

for many, this is no-limit holdem because:
*it's hot right now and attracting lots of fish
*the ability to hand-read
*the controlling of pot odds

In all these, the expert (even the aggressively mediocre) player has a huge edge over the newbie/rec player

[Choparno]

I agree that you should play wherever your edge is greatest (or whatever you enjoy playing the most). In short-stacked live NL, your edge may be reduced to the point where your regular limit game is more profitable.

I play live at similar stakes, 5/5NL with 100bb buy-in. However, if it is a choice between a $90 (30bb) NL game and 4/8 limit, I usually play 4/8 limit. It really depends on which games are softer and where you think your edge is.

If you believe you are a skilled NL player, then I recommend moving up to live 500NL as soon as possible if the players are still bad because you'll find the 100bb stacks allow you to outplay people more.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

The conventional wisdom is that big bet poker is more profitable with less variabce than limit poker - I'm here to challenge that assertion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's true.

For online 6-max games there's a lot of evidence to suggest that in limit, a good winrate is around 2BB/100 with standard deviation of 18, while in no-limit the winrate is around 5BB/100 with standard deviation 45.

That is to say, they're much the same in terms of what a good player can achieve.

(I believe that recently it is getting harder and harder to attain those winrates; but the comparison stands.)

Guy.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
the best game is the one in which your edge over the table is the biggest

for many, this is no-limit holdem because:
*it's hot right now and attracting lots of fish
*the ability to hand-read
*the controlling of pot odds

In all these, the expert (even the aggressively mediocre) player has a huge edge over the newbie/rec player

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the "new fish" reason currently predominates over all else. I fancy myself a solid limit player and a "training wheels" NL player and despite my lack of experience in NL I have an advantage, especially live. The advantage is simply that in any NL game there will be at least one or more ESPN inspired dolt ready to stack off with middle pair.

[bacats32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The advantage is simply that in any NL game there will be at least one or more ESPN inspired dolt ready to stack off with middle pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

love that one it is so right and so funny

[EgoSlasher]

edges are bigger in NL so yes.

[DrBakunin]

For neophyte NL players, especially adjusting to the live game from limit, prepare to take some swings. Sometimes you just have to put the money in. (That's why they call it gambling, Mike...)

I find NL to be less luck based, thus less variance, than limit, especially against calling station type players, because most pots are bluffed down on marginal hands. IE, whereas in limit your bread and butter was tptk value bets, those same bets can cause you to hemorrage money... Often I find my bigger earns over a session occurred while cbetting J9s unimproved or what have you.

Also, more so live than online, when you drop a hundo down on a donkey/nit, you usually know where you're at. =) Limit is like sailing along and NL is like fishing with dynamite.