HU NL vs Limit: Which is the best test of skill?

[good2cu]

That 40% is pretty retarded. Maybe if u were played HU with 10BBs. These tournies are played with 100+BBs. Your edge againest someone moving in all the time would be 70%+

[jay_shark]

you'll win 60 % of the time .

Just ask Ferguson if you don't believe me :P

I can also show you if you wish .

[passthesuga]

[ QUOTE ]
I play both from 10-25 nl to 50-100 nl and up to 300-600 limit and sometime 500-1000 on ft..... No limit against the right opponant who raise fire fops you can just wiat for your sets and what not in limit it isnt that easy because you get less value out of your big hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP's question was regarding HU sng's not cash games as you play in. The answer is very different depending on whether your talking cash or sng's.

And you're right, it's not that easy in limit, which is exactly why in HU sng's, NL is so much more profitable for good players, it's just that easy to get the other guys stack. A good players edge is huge. In limit HU sng's, due to the smaller edge that you can exploit over what is a finite number of hands with increasing blinds, your winning % will be smaller.

Of course, if you played with deep deep stacks this may well not be the case, but online this is usually not the case, so the answer to OP's question is without doubt NL.

This is not an argument about which game is more skilful but rather playing HU sng's, which game is more profitable for good players.

EDIT: Apologies, just re-read OP, OP stated his experience has been tourneys, but his question is not cash or sng specific. Hence either answer could be correct, depending.....

Regards,
Jules

[green_tea]

[ QUOTE ]
you'll win 60 % of the time .

Just ask Ferguson if you don't believe me :P

I can also show you if you wish .

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the blind structure that supports this figure of 60%?

green_tea

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
Another interesting point about nl heads up sng's is that if a player decides before hand that he's going to push all in on every hand then that player will still end up winning around 40 % of the time .

This is a mathematical fact which is something i've been aware of for a while

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. You have to consider it in the context of stack sizes and blinds. If the stacks are deep and the blinds are low, a competent player will do far better than 60 percent.

[Erik W]

I have been playing HUNL sng's for a living for some time now. Limit is far more of a crapshoot, because a good NL player can avoid situations where their stack is at risk unless they have a significant edge.

Completely untrue. Often you are playing a player with almost similar skilla so you'd be happy to get a 53% shot especially since you will be able to start a new SNG.

That is, when they commit a significant number of chips to a hand, they are almost always gettng the best of it.

Nope, as stated above.

They can also utilise pot control as both an agressive and defensive tool in order to take advantage of their strong holdings, and decrease chips spent on weak hands and draws. Anyone (a great player or a break even player) can hit BET with top pair in limit or CALL with a good draw and pot/implied odds.

That is the finess of Limit. Knowing when to raise 2pTk and when to call it and when to cd 3 pair and when to 3B-bluff the river with a busted draw as Phil Ivey did against TLK yesterday (TJ on an AK board).

Different skills different game.

Facing the same decisions in no limit against overbets/pot sized bets and against different types of opponents is a far more difficult art to master.

I'd say it is much harder to calculate your live outs in Limit than it is in some overbet NL pot(that might be a bluff whatever).

The mistakes made by those who have not mastered the game will cost them significantly, not just a couple of BB's.
These significant mistakes reduce the "crapshoot" element in no limit to a degree that is simply not possible in limit.

That is why the stakes is much higher i Limit. Again , different game, different structure. If you eanr a BB/100h in Limit that is an excellent result so any BB decison is very important.

In NL the cards do not matter as much as the opponent. In limit the cards have a far greater effect on who wins the SNG. In limit you can get dealt cr-p for 20 hands putting you at a significant disadvantage.

I Nl you can hit your 72o full house and win immediately if your opponent also have a hand. Is that more skillfull?

This is not necessarily so in NL. It is far more difficult to take an opponent off a pair in HU limit than in HU no limit, because the cost of calling in limit is so much cheaper.

So what? Is bluffing all there is to NL or does hand strength matter. If hand strength matter what about when you get rr? It might be better to cd TP in limit than in NL but that is all about structure and probablities. What if you have a straight in NL and there is a possible backdoor flush, will you call down or not? That might equal a cd in limit with 2pbk and 2pgk etc etc. Different formats different skills. You cant just look into what you know and master and then compare to some other format, cause you don't understand the true skill of the different format. IF you master both formats then you ill be able to make a much better judgement.

I master none so I won't say either limit or NL is more skillful.

[omgwtfnoway]

next time use the quote function [.quote] [./quote]

[jay_shark]

Let me make another comment regarding this topic .

Your $/h will be higher playing nl . A great limit hold em player may make 2BB/100 where as a great nl player may make 5-6 BB/100 .

On the other hand , your ROI for heads up sng's may be greater in limit hold em but the games take way too long to finish . Personally I have a better win rate playing limit hold em since there is a lot of postflop play which i'm comfortable with . In the end , it's not about who can win the most games but how much you can earn /hand .

I'm a fan of both games so I like to defend limit hold em since it's so unpopular these days :P

[BobAllinSki]

[ QUOTE ]
Another interesting point about nl heads up sng's is that if a player decides before hand that he's going to push all in on every hand then that player will still end up winning around 40 % of the time .

This is a mathematical fact which is something i've been aware of for a while . Chris Ferguson also mentioned this in one book that I read which relates to game theory .

[/ QUOTE ]

this is dependant on how deep the money is, most hup sng's dont get shallow enough untin after the first few levels. but yeah, pot limit is much more skillfull with shallow money

[passthesuga]

Interesting reply Erik. If you could clarify a few of the points below it may help me understand where you are coming from. Thanks in advance.

[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing HUNL sng's for a living for some time now. Limit is far more of a crapshoot, because a good NL player can avoid situations where their stack is at risk unless they have a significant edge.

Completely untrue. Often you are playing a player with almost similar skilla so you'd be happy to get a 53% shot especially since you will be able to start a new SNG.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you mean by this? Why do you think you will be playing a player with similar skills in no limit, but not in limit? Also why be happy to take a 53% shot and start a new SNG? Generally, you are looking to maximize +EV and if you will beat a player 60-75% of the time it is far better to be patient. The cost of the additional time spent is more than covered by your overlay.

[ QUOTE ]
That is, when they commit a significant number of chips to a hand, they are almost always gettng the best of it.

Nope, as stated above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why you say "nope" here (the above reasoning you cited doesn't really apply?). Are you suggesting that 60+% HUSNG winners are not getting the best of it more often than the average bear?

[ QUOTE ]
They can also utilise pot control as both an agressive and defensive tool in order to take advantage of their strong holdings, and decrease chips spent on weak hands and draws. Anyone (a great player or a break even player) can hit BET with top pair in limit or CALL with a good draw and pot/implied odds.

That is the finess of Limit. Knowing when to raise 2pTk and when to call it and when to cd 3 pair and when to 3B-bluff the river with a busted draw as Phil Ivey did against TLK yesterday (TJ on an AK board).

Different skills different game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Different skills different game, yes this is generally the case. Your TLK Ivey example is a cash game. If the hand in question was a SNG as opposed to a cash game, it may well have been played differently by both players. TLK may have called in a SNG for one more bet due to the different strategy required in HUSNG play as opposed to HU cash game play. All of my reasoning was with reference to HUSNG play.

[ QUOTE ]
Facing the same decisions in no limit against overbets/pot sized bets and against different types of opponents is a far more difficult art to master.

I'd say it is much harder to calculate your live outs in Limit than it is in some overbet NL pot(that might be a bluff whatever).

[/ QUOTE ]

Calculating/estimating live outs and pot/implied odds in limit should be very easy for any standard limit players. This is not difficult it is relatively basic. Your comment re: "bluff whatever" is interesting. Certainly bluffing is not as big a part of the game in limit, for obvious reasons. Therefore the skills of dealing with bluffs and utilising bluffs are far more pronounced in no limit. I think that is what I was trying to say. "Bluff whatever" suggests you do not respect this as a skill, or struggle to deal with situations where you are making a decision for your entire stack, and it is probably why you prefer limit (nothing wrong with this).

[ QUOTE ]
The mistakes made by those who have not mastered the game will cost them significantly, not just a couple of BB's.
These significant mistakes reduce the "crapshoot" element in no limit to a degree that is simply not possible in limit.

That is why the stakes is much higher i Limit. Again , different game, different structure. If you eanr a BB/100h in Limit that is an excellent result so any BB decison is very important.

[/ QUOTE ]

In cash games yes, definitely, BB decisions are where you make your money. But a cash game is really a long string of hands without a finite end. You play and decisions (in limit cash) should not be affected by stack sizes. In a HUSNG, this is clearly not the case (and is one reason why TLK may have called in a HUSNG, but not in a cash game, and why Ivey may have played the hand differently too) Once again, as I stressed in my post, I am talking about SNG's. Please re-read.

[ QUOTE ]
In NL the cards do not matter as much as the opponent. In limit the cards have a far greater effect on who wins the SNG. In limit you can get dealt cr-p for 20 hands putting you at a significant disadvantage.

I Nl you can hit your 72o full house and win immediately if your opponent also have a hand. Is that more skillfull?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most certainly if you are skilled enough to read your opponents pot sized flop bet with overcards as a bluff, check raise him all in and receive a call having taken advantage of his inability to realise what "pot committed" really means and having utilised your poor starting hand to take full advantage of implied odds and your opponents tendencies. Once again different skills to limit, but for you to say hitting with 72o is "luck" shows a basic misunderstanding of some of the major principles in HUNL SNG play. Obviously, you don't get all your chips in pre-flop with 72o. Hitting there would be luck preceeded by bad play.

[ QUOTE ]
This is not necessarily so in NL. It is far more difficult to take an opponent off a pair in HU limit than in HU no limit, because the cost of calling in limit is so much cheaper.

So what? Is bluffing all there is to NL or does hand strength matter. If hand strength matter what about when you get rr? It might be better to cd TP in limit than in NL but that is all about structure and probablities. What if you have a straight in NL and there is a possible backdoor flush, will you call down or not? That might equal a cd in limit with 2pbk and 2pgk etc etc. Different formats different skills. You cant just look into what you know and master and then compare to some other format, cause you don't understand the true skill of the different format. IF you master both formats then you ill be able to make a much better judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, bluffing is quite clearly not all there is to no-limit. I agree with part 2 there, I played limit cash games for a living for 3 years. I now play NL cash and SNG. I am stating my opinion based on personal experience. I "mastered" (for want of a better term) limit far quicker then NL (which I find far more interesting and am yet to "master" by my own frame of reference). Please note master = beating Party 10/20 short hand, so flame away. I guess at my stage of poker development I feel as though no-limit provides me with far more learning opportunities, limit having been a stepping stone to that. I would certainly be very uncomfortable play NL without my grounding in limit, which I feel gives players a great platform to work from and expand their game. Limit is no doubt a great game too.

[ QUOTE ]
I master none so I won't say either limit or NL is more skillful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, considering how much time you spent refuting my claim that NL was mor skilful [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Jules