Limit Holdem can only be profitable with high stakes vs. no limit ?

[All in Che]

Hello all,

I didn't know where to post this, please explain my question:

Many have said that no limit holdem is more profitable then limit but also you will have much higher swings than in limit.

I found limit holdem to be a much better ring game than in no limit because you are playing with the odds in your favor so you win in the longrun and also if you suffer a bad beat or lose to margianl hand you don't lose much so its less risk less swings.

For me I prefer no limit holdem Sit&Go's at UltimateBet (so many fish) because I like playing aggresive since I can only lose my buyin and tournament chips and not real cash chips like in ring games.

So refering to my question I find that playing micro or small stakes Limit holdem will not really win enough cash for someone who wants to make it as a part time job.

Is it correct to say that if I really want to make some good real cash playing Limit holdem I have to play the medium/high stakes were you won't get that many chases to river and lose to bad beats less often? (get what I am saying, its almost impossible to win at the low stakes .25/.50 or 1/2 so many callers & chases)

Also I don't know so can someone tell me what is the average/good win rate playing Limit Holdem? (I think its BB/H not sure)

Thank you

[RyverRat]

[ QUOTE ]


Is it correct to say that if I really want to make some good real cash playing Limit holdem I have to play the medium/high stakes were you won't get that many chases to river and lose to bad beats less often? (get what I am saying, its almost impossible to win at the low stakes .25/.50 or 1/2 so many callers & chases)



[/ QUOTE ]

I dont play limit so i cant really comment too much on your question but i believe that your quote above is untrue.

You want people to chase to the river and you want to be losing to bad beats. This means you got your money in when you were ahead. This is what will make you $$ in the long run. You will find it harder to make money at the larger games as there are less players willing to chase.

[All in Che]

ok, does anyone have an idea at around what stakes of Limit Holdem do you have to play to make a decent hourly rate something like $10-15/hour?

[pepitannikita]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, does anyone have an idea at around what stakes of Limit Holdem do you have to play to make a decent hourly rate something like $10-15/hour?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know if about 4,000 hours is enough hours logged to have any meaning whatsoever but I played 3/6 limit which was the lowest game spread at the casino I went to (every now and then I would sit at a 6/12 limit table but not enough to be statistically meaningful) and I averaged $14/hour during that time (since I was brand new learning, I had some real swingy sessions for awhile also).

No clue at all how typical this may or may not be. I played like it was my job, going every day for at least 8 hours. Learned who other regulars were and how they played and learned to pick tables. The hourly rate average included monies won for things like "Aces cracked, win a rack" which added a bit to the figures.

Didn't get rich but it sure helped a lot to make ends meet.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, does anyone have an idea at around what stakes of Limit Holdem do you have to play to make a decent hourly rate something like $10-15/hour?

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends how many tables you play at once, and on your win rate. An expert might be able to win that much at $0.50-$1 playing 4 tables, or at $2-$4 by playing 2 tables.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, does anyone have an idea at around what stakes of Limit Holdem do you have to play to make a decent hourly rate something like $10-15/hour?

[/ QUOTE ]

I average $7 an hour four-tabling .25/.50, so $10-$15 an hour ought to be possible at .50/1 if you play enough tables.

[Luhroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I don't know so can someone tell me what is the average/good win rate playing Limit Holdem? (I think its BB/H not sure)

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to make an educated guess and then continuously examine this guess and readjust accordingly based upon new data. Sklansky and Malmuth provide very general to very technical advice regarding this. For instance, Sklansky wrote in The Theory of Poker that, "If [and this 'if' is crucial] you have estimated your hourly rate correctly, your eventual winnings will approximate your projected hourly rate multiplied by the total hours played" (p. 15, 2005, my emphasis; also see Slanky's Poker, Gaming & Life, p. 110, 2000). Additionally, in Gambling for a Living , Sklansky and Malmuth note that, "the amount of money you ought to win as a professional poker player should be fairly close to one big bet an hour if not more" (p. 220, 1997). But this needs to be contextualized with what they have more recently said (see my first reply to this post). Furthermore, in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Malmuth includes a chapter called "Win Rate Accuracy," and in it he states that, "In some games, it may take a lifetime to find out exactly how well you play" (p. 68, 2004). However, in Poker Essays, he qualifies this in a chapter called, "Win Rate Accuracy Revisited," by saying that, "If you have a good understanding of the game you are playing in and are well-disciplined, then by observation, you will gain a pretty good idea of what your win rate should be in a relatively short period of time. However, if your understanding of the game is poor, don't expect to do very well in the long run, even if your recent results are spectacular" (p. 70, 2004). Finally, I'd recommend you check out Malmuth's essay in Poker Essays II titled, "Moving Up" (2005).

[SellingtheDrama]

I play cash no limit (casino games, not online) pretty much exclusively, and I can honestly disagree with the OP almost entirely.

The swings are not that bad - if you are a pretty good player and can make good decisions in the marginal spots. If you can't, you will get chewed up in the games I play (usually 2/5, $500 max buyin).

The odds are hugely in my favor - I can get someone all in drawing to 20% or less roughly once every 4-5 hours on average. Yeah they'll hit sometimes, but I can fade the varience (as anyone who is playing professional or semiprofessional should). Anyone who is playing for income, by definition, is going to be playing enough hours to neutralize any individual hand's luck factor.

Also, you always want people to chase you down with their bad draws. I personally love it when my turn shoves are called by a flush draw - I'm making a ton of Sklansky Bucks/EV each and every time.

And also, you won't ever make a decent living playing microstakes. You need to be playing at least medium stakes games to make any sort of good living.

[Pokerfarian]

[z]LHE is must more swingier than NLHE
[x]low limit NLHE is very much more beatable than mid/high stakes
[x]mid/high stakes is much more swingy than grinding against "chasers"

[All in Che]

[ QUOTE ]
[z]LHE is must more swingier than NLHE
[x]low limit NLHE is very much more beatable than mid/high stakes
[x]mid/high stakes is much more swingy than grinding against "chasers"

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you say all this, is this really true?

also I plan on playing 1 table online for now, so what stakes should I be playing Limit Holdem to make it around $10-$15/hour anyone know?