talk me out of playing no limit

[phydaux]

I've been focusing my efforts toward learning limit hold'em. I've read several books, and have logged ~5k hands of limit hold'em on Poker Academy (I'm half way through my 10k hand exparament). So far I've played ring games exclusivly.

However, lately I've been thinking that I might prefer no limit. I enjoy limit ring poker, and I belive I have what it takes to be a winning player. But mucking 80+% of the hands I'm delt doesn't exactly make for an exciting night at the table. I'm thinking (although I could be wrong) that playing short handed no limit or no limit S-n-Gs might have more action, and therefore be more interesting.

I understand that you need a larger roll to play no limit. that implies that the varience in no limit is greater. but I have also heard that a certain "noted poker authority" has said there is more money to be made per hour by playing no limit S-n-Gs that by grinding limit ring games (got that info second hand, I may be wrong).

Anyway, I'm wondering if some of you can talk me out of "changing gears" and focusing on no limit?

I think being an impatient poker player is a bad reason to want to switch to No Limit. Impatience will cost you A LOT more money at the NL tables than at the limit tables. I am not saying that this is your reason, but I still think that is important to bring up.

That said, I think being good at more than one game is a great skill to have. This way, when you get burnt out playing one game, you can just switch to the next and be fresh.

Yes, the variance is higher at NL games, so you'll need to make sure you are sufficiently bankrolled. How much is sufficient depends on your skill level and your game-type (i.e, losse-aggressive vs. tight-passive, etc.), but 20-30 full buy-ins usually do the trick.

As far as SnGs go, the variance here is even less than at the full ring limit games! The general consensus is that you can get away with 30 buy-ins or so here, but as a beginniner, I would suggest no less than 50.

I would say try the SnGs out. I know plenty of people who are making quite good livings over there. As for me, I'm a big fan of playing a little of everything. In the end, regardless of whether or not I'm winning money, if poker becomes utterly monotonous for me, I will lose interest.

[SheridanCat]

I'm not going to talk you out of it, necessarily. There's nothing wrong with playing NL hold'em.

[ QUOTE ]
But mucking 80+% of the hands I'm delt doesn't exactly make for an exciting night at the table. I'm thinking (although I could be wrong) that playing short handed no limit or no limit S-n-Gs might have more action, and therefore be more interesting.


[/ QUOTE ]

Poker isn't exciting. That's the bottom line. If you find poker exciting, you're probably playing too many hands. If you want to make a foray into the NL arena, then I suggest you stick to full games, if playing ring. Sit-and-gos are fun to play, no doubt about that, and they can be very profitable.

[ QUOTE ]

I understand that you need a larger roll to play no limit.


[/ QUOTE ]

This depends on what size game you want to play. I believe they recommend 20 buy-ins over at the NLHE forums. I guarantee, there is a size for about any bankroll if you're on the right sites.

[ QUOTE ]

that implies that the varience in no limit is greater.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think you'll find no-limit hold'em to have a smaller variance than limit hold'em. Of course, it can be played in such a way that the swings are greater, but I think the conventional wisdom is that NL swings less.

[ QUOTE ]

but I have also heard that a certain "noted poker authority" has said there is more money to be made per hour by playing no limit S-n-Gs that by grinding limit ring games (got that info second hand, I may be wrong).


[/ QUOTE ]

This really depends on many factors. It may be true for some and not others.

The only reason I would recommend that people play limit vs no-limit is that the study material is more available for limit. However, the gap is quickly filling in and when we see the Miller/Sklansky no-limit book, I'm guessing that gap will be filled nearly completely.

You should play the game you find most enjoyable and profitable. In the long run it's important to be able to play either game in either tournament or ring formats and if you have short handed experience, more the better.

So, play was you like and see how you like it.

Regards,

T

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think you'll find no-limit hold'em to have a smaller variance than limit hold'em. Of course, it can be played in such a way that the swings are greater, but I think the conventional wisdom is that NL swings less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the conventional wisdom is the opposite of this.

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]

However, lately I've been thinking that I might prefer no limit. I enjoy limit ring poker, and I belive I have what it takes to be a winning player. But mucking 80+% of the hands I'm delt doesn't exactly make for an exciting night at the table. I'm thinking (although I could be wrong) that playing short handed no limit or no limit S-n-Gs might have more action, and therefore be more interesting.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to get involved in more hands, the short-handed part of your plan makes sense. However, the no-limit part does not make sense. A good, tight no-limit player will muck a lot more hands pre-flop than a good, tight limit player. You'll also fold a lot more post-flop, as the draws you can profitably play in limit will be priced out of the pot a lot more often in no-limit.

[ChuckyB]

Try short-handed limit. Lots of action even if you only play 30% of your hands. Plus, it prevents massive single-hand losses while you're learning.

[Altaslim]

Actually, CW supports the idea that variance is less in the NL game. A simple explanation is that in NL you can manipulate the pot odds that your opponents are getting such that it makes it unprofitable for them to continue. See how it feels when you"ve flopped a four flush and somebody tries to put you all in.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, CW supports the idea that variance is less in the NL game. A simple explanation is that in NL you can manipulate the pot odds that your opponents are getting such that it makes it unprofitable for them to continue. See how it feels when you"ve flopped a four flush and somebody tries to put you all in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but plain and simple, the pots are bigger, and so are the swings. I really can't see a covincing argument otherwise. The fact is, you may get correctly sucked out on less, but the amount you lose when you are sucked out on is significantly higher in NL.

[Altaslim]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but plain and simple, the pots are bigger, and so are the swings. I really can't see a covincing argument otherwise. The fact is, you may get correctly sucked out on less, but the amount you lose when you are sucked out on is significantly higher in NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying here, but do a little more digging and you'll find that you are mistaken.

[Nottom]

Simple argument for not playing NL:
If you thought you folded too much in limit, then NL is not going to be your cup of tea.

If you really want action play 6-max limit (VPIP of 25-30% is pretty common for good players) or learn to multi-table).