Is PL that much different

[bacats32]

I play mainly $.25/$.50. I go for whatever table looks soft. I do extremely well at NL. But I have never had a winning session in the PL. To be honest I have had some bad luck but come on, I just cant seem to win there. Should I stay away from it or is there some different nuances that just aren't apart of NL or something. Overall I am a 7-8 bb/100 player but I know the PL is bringing me down.

[JDonk]

Tons more post flop skill required, math will almost never be a problem either.

Im no bigshot but i dont recommend PL online, im just biased i would never play PL unless its live.

[Nsight7]

Pot-limit is significantly more skilled in my opinion. With big hands it is significantly more difficult to price someone out of a chase and more difficult to put someone on hand. Much more nuance involved. Just my opinion though.

[Vanidor]

I have been playing micro limit PL for a long time and have learned to really kill the game. My win rate is 7+ ptbb over last 25,000 hands. My win rate for uNL however is much smaller--about 1ptbb over last 10,000 hands. (I play very little NL.)

Recently, I have started to force myself to play NL in order to learn the game better before I jump up in limits. I think that I have had more success at PL for two reasons: 1. at micro limits, the PL game is much softer than the NL game.
2. I have a tendency to pay off on the river (limit mindset) and that hurts a lot more in NL than PL because that river bet can be much larger.

I am sure that at higher limits the PL game is tougher than NL, but I think at micro limits the PL game is much softer.

[Robin Donks]

IMO PL games are full of draw chasing fish and 200PL seems to me softer than 100NL. Don't know about higher limits, on my site (ongame) 200PL is the highest game going. Your bad luck can easily be down to variance. Oh, and everyone chases all draws so obviously big pairs go down in value in multiway pots, suited aces rock, etc etc

[Paul Levy]

If the game is particularly loose (such as at the Vic) it becomes so different it's not even funny. For instance, big pairs become playable almost only for set value. Also in PL position becomes even more important than in no limit for the fact that when action gets to you the pot is larger than or equal to than when action starts, giving you more freedom to bet big.

[RobNottsUk]

Position is more important in PL. Draws from early position, have no way to get nearly All In on the flop, unless they're short stacked and can check/raise.

But I suspect, the problem is adjusting to multi-way, rather than short-handed pots, you simply need a much bigger hand to be 'best'.

Also, in PL you need to manipulate the pot size carefully, from early in the hand, to be able to get the big bets in on turn (and river).

The limp/re-raise play (like in PLO) may help with big pairs, if you're short stacked. Deepstack big pairs, go down in value even in NL, if you like playing tight (or face unbluffable opponents) playing shorter stacked may be a better strategy (deny loose players implied odds, and reduce their bluffing leverage).