Limit > No limit

[Mentor]

A couple years ago when my friend and I first
started up our poker school (www.pokermentor.net)
we decided to focus solely on limit. We feel
strongly about the reasoning behind. If anyone
can find flaws in reasoning you guys can [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

enjoy:

<u>The System</u>

I am going to coin a term called "multi-tasking
energy" and it has to do with how many things a
player can do at once. Someone can use this
"energy" to do 3 primary things: making player
reads, thinking about what to do, and physically
clicking the bet/fold/call buttons.


Why play so many tables?
i) It is almost ALWAYS better to be playing more
tables of a lower limit than fewer tables of a
higher limit. Win rate is directly proportiona
to the difference between the skill levels of you
and your opponents. In fact, all money won and
lost in the long run stems from this difference
in skill. So you want to be playing with the worst
players out there. Notice that playing 8 tables
of $0.5/1, or 4 tables of $1/2, or 2 tables of
$2/4, or 1 table of $4/8 is basically playing for
the same "stakes" (the # of tables * the big bets
are equal) So which of those 4 would you choose to
do?

8 tables of $0.5/1 &gt; 4 tables of $1/2 &gt; 2 tables of $2/4 &gt; 1 table of $4/8

Notice that on the left side of the spectrum
most of your "multi-tasking energy" is going
to be going towards physicall clicking the
bet/fold/call buttons while most of your energy
on the right side will be going towards thinking
and making player reads. However, the skill
difference etween you and the $0.5/1 players with
minimal player reads is still MUCH greater than
the skill difference between you and the $4/8
players WITH better player reads.


ii) For many beginning players the limiting
factor in their hourly rate is their bankroll,
not their skill. They have the capabilities to
play at higher limits but their bankroll does
not allow it. So what if you could viably play
the same stakes with your current bankroll? You
can, just break the stakes down into smaller
tables. The number of tables you play has NO
effecton your bankroll requirements.(unless
of course you are playing so many tables that
you do not have enough to buy in properly for
each) Playing 8 tables is equivalen to playing
1 table 8 times as long. This is why increasing
the number of tables you can play is the easiest
way to increase profit.


iii) As stated above playing 8 tables is
equivalent to playing 1 table 8 times as long.
This means that you are going to grind through
variance MUCH quicker. You need about 20,000
hands to have a decently accurate view of your
play (or to at least know that you are a winning
player). Imagine how long it will take to play
20,000 hands with 1 table versus many.

vi) The last and most overlooked advantage of
multi-tabling has to do with your mental game.
When you are plowing away at 8 tables you don't
have time to tilt and because you are playing a
smaller limit each individual pot has much less
significance to you so you care less about the bad
beats. Having to make plays quickly also prevents
you from becomming bored and loosening up too much.
You won't be so attached to your pocket aces because
you are going to receive them 8 times as much.



Why limit?
i) The main reason we have our students play
limit poker is because it allows them to play
more tables than other formats. No limit and
tournament play poker require you to spend much
more of your "energy" on making player reads and
thinking.

ii) It is easier to remain disciplined in limit
holdem. No limit is a more personal game and it
makes it harder detach yourself. People sometimes
complain that in limit you "can't protect your
hand"but at least you don't get your whole stack
taken when someone finally does draw out on you.

iii) Lastly, limit poker is much more plausible
to teach than no limit poker, easier to teach
science than art

So how exactly should I be spending my "multi-
tasking energy" to maximize my win rate?

Basically you want to max out the number of
tables you are playing with one exception. You
must have enough "energy" left over to catch
and note the maniacs. These are the only types
of players that will really hurt you if you do
not adjust to them. However, if you DO adjust
to them they can be some of the most profitable
to play with. There is no way around it, because
you play so many tables you ARE going to get
juked out of a pot or two by these guys but you
must catch and note them the second they reveal
themselves. What I personally end up doing is
playing as many tables as my dexterity allows me
and then using all extra time to watch the
outcomes of hands I play in to gather the notes
I take on players.

[Mr_Donktastic]

ummmm...ok

i like pokah too

[Hobbs.]

mentor, you need to do some more interviews with high stakes guys.

[Mentor]

Yeah I plan to, do you have any players
who you are thinking of in particular?

-Dan

[BenA]

32 tbl .12/.6 &gt; 16 tbl .25/.5 &gt; 8 tbl .5/1 &gt; 4 tbl 1/2 &gt; 2 tbl 2/4 &gt; 1 tbl 4/8

Um, on some level you may have some wierd sort of point, but really, its about thinking carefully about all decisions, no matter what the limit. My little joke up above illustrates the 'point of diminishing returns' concept in your theory. All players need to find their own balance. The biggest flaw I see is this:

4 tbl 5/10 &gt; 4 tbl of 3/6. Emphasizing staying lower ignores the benefits of higher stakes/ lower proportional rake/ and real experience that .5/1 tables just don't give you.

Just my .02 cents. But hey, if your theory has some data to back it up, I'd love to see it.

[BenKT68]

[ QUOTE ]
For many beginning players the limiting
factor in their hourly rate is their bankroll,
not their skill. They have the capabilities to
play at higher limits but their bankroll does
not allow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do raise some interesting points, but you need to convince more of the people you mentor that the above is true. (and stake them a decent br) I need more beginners at my table.

[Mr_Donktastic]

Your theory is interesting but I don't think it would work for everybody, and honestly it may even hinder peoples development.

An alternate theory would go something like this:
- play at the highest level yoru bankroll allows
- ONLY sit at tables that are juicy AND wait until a good seat opens up (to the left of the juicyness)
- play at as many of these tables that you can find at any given time, up to the amount you are comfortable with.
- profit.

Pretty simple stuff.

What I don't like about your plan is that:
- your edge diminishes at some point when you add TOO MANY tables - I don't care who you are. It's a different number for everybody.
- playing a ton of tables leads to playing robot poker and you don't THINK about the game and your decisions enough and thus never develop as a player
- and just to reiterate my point about table selection: there aren't always 8 good tables going at any given limit, and definitely not 8 good seats at those tables. By forcing yourself to play so many tables you're going to end up at bad tables in bad seats.

[friend_]

There is no future in playing 8 tables of 0.5/1.
Your playing skills will not advance and you may start hating poker soon.

[Hobbs.]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I plan to, do you have any players
who you are thinking of in particular?

-Dan

[/ QUOTE ]
schneids, tongni, durrrrr, el diablo, aba20, jeffage, to name a few

[Mentor]

You guys bring up good points and I will do
my best to respond to them.



"32 tbl .12/.6 &gt; 16 tbl .25/.5 &gt; 8 tbl .5/1 &gt; 4 tbl 1/2 &gt; 2 tbl 2/4 &gt; 1 tbl 4/8 "

read the last paragraph of my initial post:

"Basically you want to max out the number of
tables you are playing with one exception. You
must have enough "energy" left over to catch
and note the maniacs."

If you can play 32 tables and can do that more
power to you. But I am implying that you only
max tables as your dexterity and maniac-catching
allow.