|
|
#1
04-12-2006, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Limit vs. No limit
Anyone want to comment on the relative merits of no limit vs. limit? Which is the "better" game and why? For what kind of player each is better?
I've played exclusively NL until about 2 weeks ago when I decided to learn some limit. I have some initial thoughts but only limited experience and I'd rather let others comment first. I'll post the same thing in the limit forum to get a full range of input. 
|
|
#2
04-12-2006, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Limit vs. No limit
Very very standard conversation on these boards. You will do better to just use the search function. You won't get a full discussion here because of how beaten to death this topic is.
Many many good posts on this topic, just utilize the search.
|
|
#3
04-12-2006, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Limit vs. No limit
In the last few years, I've played over 20k hands of both.
Limit has a MUCH lower sustainable PTBB/100 winrate than no-limit. As in "factor of 5 lower." A good micro-stakes limit player can sustain 2.5 PTBB/100; a good micro-stakes no-limit player can sustain 12.5 PTBB/100. A good mid-stakes limit player can sustain 1.5 PTBB/100; a good mid-stakes no-limit player can sustain 7.5 PTBB/100. This discrepency leads to lower "swings" in the typical no-limit player's bankroll in dollar terms (though not in PTBB-terms). The blinds are less valuable in no-limit than in limit. In a limit game, the blinds often make up 1/5th or more of the value of the final pot; in a no-limit game, the blinds often make up 1/10th or less of the value of the final pot. This makes good blind defense and attacks more important in a limit game than in a no-limit game. Limit players are always trying to figure out how to get their opponents to fold. No-limit players are always trying to figure out how to get their opponents to CALL. In limit, you can't easily change the odds that you're offering your opponents, so you have to rely on them making mistakes; in no-limit, you can set the odds for your opponents at any level you want, so you have more ability to INDUCE mistakes, rather than just hope for them. Limit tables tend to be multiway postflop much more often; no-limit tables tend to be heads-up by the flop, or at LEAST by the turn. At a no-limit table, drawing hands lose value dramatically and weakly made hands go up in value dramatically, since manipulating odds can easily prohibit a player from getting proper odds to chase. At a no-limit table, position is king; at a limit table, position is only the prince. At a no-limit table, hand reading is more important than math. At a limit table, math is more important than hand reading. At a no-limit table, implied odds are more important than pot odds. At a limit table, pot odds are more important than implied odds. Good limit players get frustrated and start playing no-limit. Good no-limit players get frustrated and start playing Russian Roulette.
|
|
#4
04-12-2006, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Limit vs. No limit
My theory:
3/6 limit - blinds of $4 each orbit - size of future pot (heads up on flop, capped) about $144 (rough guess) .50/1 NL - blinds of $1.50 each orbit - size of future pot (heads up on flop, all in) $200 So, pay $4 an orbit to win $144 or $1.50 an orbit to win $200? By the way, that is best case scenario for limit and very rare that it's capped on all streets, whereas in NL, it's not rare to push and be called heads up.
|
|
#7
04-12-2006, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Limit vs. No limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In the last few years, I've played over 20k hands of both. [/ QUOTE ] How do you find the time? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] We mock what we don't understand. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I know that 20k hands is trivially small to some people, but how many here have played 20k hands of BOTH limit structures in the last few years? Oh, and throw in 10k hands of O8 to boot. And probably thirty or more hands of Night Baseball! And don't even get me started on Spider Solitaire....
|
|
#8
04-12-2006, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Limit vs. No limit
[ QUOTE ]
but how many here have played 20k hands of BOTH limit structures in the last few years? [/ QUOTE ] In the last 18 months, I have played about: 200k hands LHE. 500 NL multi-table tournaments 3000 NL SNGs tournaments 120k hands NL holdem COMMON PEOPLE, KEEP UP!
|
|
#9
04-12-2006, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Limit vs. No limit
Wow...spectacular post.
[ QUOTE ] At a no-limit table, hand reading is more important than math. At a limit table, math is more important than hand reading. [/ QUOTE ] I hate the deemphasis of needing a read in limit...it barely matters. It makes it easy to play a lot of tables but I think the reads in NL add a lot to the interest of playing the game. The math in limit needs to be watched more closely but it too is relatively simplistic math...barely more than converting outs to odds. The math in NL is very fluid and imprecise but also therefore more intricate and interesting. [ QUOTE ] Good limit players get frustrated and start playing no-limit. Good no-limit players get frustrated and start playing Russian Roulette. [/ QUOTE ] That is a soon to be a classic. I have my first chance to play in a B&M in the beginning of May but they only have limit so I've switched for this month to try to learn it. After only playing NL before it is just not as much fun. Kinda mechanical and relatively boring. I'm just putting up with it in the name of learning until I can get back to NL.
|
|
#10
04-12-2006, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Limit vs. No limit
Yowza. No wonder you post one-line responses to threads; you don't have TIME for anything else.
I'm slow at accumulating hands because I usually one- or two-table at most. I two-tabled full-ring, but now that I've switched to six-max I'm strictly one-tabling. Incidentally, I HIGHLY recomment one-tabling for people still new to the game/stakes/casino/etc.; the level of knowledge you can gain while playing one table is HUGE.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
