Why NL is killing limit.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
1.You can learn to play the game by watching it on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

FY[FYP]P.

[daveT]

especially in the large ante- small buy in games prevalant in casino's, this hardly comes accross as a convincing NL game, it really is like limit. and I do feel limited by NL at times.

[dedenburn]

Please teach us, wise master.

[NapoleonDolemite]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2.It's more skillful (if you don't know this, you don't understand where the skill in poker comes from). The fun of poker comes from its skill element, and even people who don't have much skill are choosing poker over slots for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason Malmuth disagrees (among others).



[/ QUOTE ]

He's wrong.

[renereal]

[ QUOTE ]
I probably agree with 2-6. But not with 1. The game is extremely boring when you're not in the hand. It's just so, so slow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Omaha 8 is for lucky players not much skill involved. No Limit Holdem is were the true skill players are not lucky omaha 8 players.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
Been to a live card room lately? The places I frequent, both HE games are still very popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wish I could say the same. Mid stakes limit has all but disappeared in the Gulf South.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
Limits seems pretty healthy and alive in most casinos today, just look around. Sure its a bit older and nittier crowd,

[/ QUOTE ]

Nittier crowd?? The mid stakes limit games today play almost like the no foldem small stakes did a decade ago.

[CarpeDiem]

What numbers back up the assertion that limit is getting killed? I know the small stakes NL forum here is the busiest but I would be curious to see some data.

[TMTTR]

I haven't read this whole thread but there is one primary reason why no limit has become popular: No limit is more exciting to watch for those who know very little about poker. This is not to say that no limit does not require skills equal to (or greater than) the skills needed to succeed in limit, just that the initial interest is sparked by watching someone put their entire bankroll on the line. It is certainly not as interesting to watch a person put one more big bet into a pot when you don't understand the game.

The rest of the original post is low-level thinking at best...
(1) No limit (particularly tournament no limit) is more exciting to watch for those who do not understand poker. If you understand the game, NL and limit can both be very interesting to watch OR very boring to watch depending on the players and the action.
(2) WRONG. Both games take skills that are often the same and sometimes very different. (If you don't know this, you don't understand where the skill in poker comes from.)
(3) Just a corollary to my point above.
(4) WRONG. Variance can be (and often is) far higher in limit. Depends on the your playing style and the playing style of your opponents.
(5) WRONG. Nits are everywhere. More nits playing no limit, just more nits by percentage playing limit. Far more prepubescent and adolessent idiots playing no limit to overwhelm the sufficiently large number of nits.
(6) Generally correct. Tournaments play better as no limit -- but if the middle stages of a limit poker tournament are long enough, a tournament can be very challenging and require far more skill than a no-limit all-in festival.

I switched from limit to no limit and then switched back because I find limit far more interesting and more intellectually challenging.

[emerson]

Why is NL killing limit? Because there are lots of gambling addicts hoping to get all their chips on the table for the rush.

NL is killing the number of limit games, but not the quality. Lots of the better players have moved to NL and lots of action junkies who get a bigger thrill out of making lots of mid sized bets, rather than occasional very big bets, play limit.