Anyone else hate limit?

[chicagoY]

I agree with you. The inherent artfulness of the NL champions suggest otherwise.

[captZEEbo]

[ QUOTE ]
You say: "When I used to play limit, I'd only win slightly more than I lose"

That just tells me you are a bad limit player. A good limit player wins big over time at a very consistent rate. So, if you are a bad limit player, which you obviously are, don't play limit.

NL games are the creature of a moment. They have only been popular for the past 5 years. They will go away in the next few years.

I actually hope I'm wrong on this, but I'm not. You'll see.

NL has NOT been around since the 1970's. It was always played here and there, but it has only been popular in the last 5 years. You are obviously young and don't know what you are talking about.

You say: "Limit poker can be won at almost all levels with a preflop hand chart." That must explain why you can't beat it. You must have forgot to bring your pre-flop hand chart.

One thing is true: Limit poker is boring for players who can't beat it. I don't find it boring at all. But I find ALL poker very interesting. Limit, PL, NL, Omaha8, Stud8, it's all good.

Bottom line is a good player should be solid at all games to be able to take advantage of any opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]I was, IMO an expert limit player for how many hands I played. I was probably a 2.x bb/100 winner at 5/10 6m before I switched to NL. When I say I only won slightly more often than I lost, that is referring to winning sessions being around 55-60% or so (don't have data on me). I still think I'm probably a winning limit player at 100/200, though I have only played around 8k hands at that level so I can't be too sure. There's definitely a lot I have to learn, but it's just hard and not worth the $ for me; I only learn it to take a day off of NL.

Indeed I am young, however I always remember hearing about Doyle playing NL games all over the place, but he had to travel for them I guess. So yeah I'm wrong there; I knew it wasn't widespread, but I just assumed it was always available.

I hear arguments like "good players should be good at all games for most potential earn". However, after NL dies out (if it ever does), I think THAT will be the time to fully hone my skills in stud, omaha, limit holdem, 2-7 TD, tournaments, etc. I expect the transitions to be easy and I am not worried. Tonight I sat down in a 30/60 omaha 8/b game with 3 full tilt pros (red names) and a 3 other people. The game was very soft imo. Nobody knows how to play poker...even the pros. I've played almost no omaha 8/b before, but still I could see people make crazy mistakes all over the place. The most profitable spots for me will continue to be nl cash games for at least the next year or 2, so I will continue to improve my skills there and continue to get better at it. I will learn other games when I have to; I think that is a good policy. We are no longer in the day where you follow 1 fish around and play any game he wants to play b/c that is your only soft spot. The internet provides a sea of fish. At any given limit for any game, you can find a juicy table in seconds.

[binions]

[quote
No I'm stating my own expeience having played limit for over 25 years. There is an art to playing limit. If you are very good, which I am, the money does flow in on a consistent basis. If that has not happened for you, you're just not a good limit player.


[/ QUOTE ]

The money flows in at 1 BB per hour at live play over time.

Sklansky says he has 6 or 7 winning sessions out of 10, meaning 3 or 4 losing sessions out of 10.

But hey, maybe you are than Sklansky at limit holdem.

[binions]

I don't hate limit per se. I simply enjoy big bet poker better, for a variety of reasons.

Limit games can be beaten. No limit of the same blind structure can be beaten far more profitably.

[sandsmarc]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't hate limit per se. I simply enjoy big bet poker better, for a variety of reasons.

Limit games can be beaten. No limit of the same blind structure can be beaten far more profitably.

[/ QUOTE ]

It all depends on where the fish are swimming. Right now, they're everywhere and this IS the Golden Age of Poker.

[satya]

I love limit because people sit at the table and play like it's the NL. When they do that I win.

I'm far from expert but I've played both and to me the two are quite different games. I simply can't play NL the way I play LHE - it just doesn't work.

Seems to me variance would be wider in NL wouldn't it? At the right table there is little "down" for me in LHE. If I'm down it's because I'm at the wrong table, playing wrong, or just not catching cards.

[donkeyradish]

Oddly enough I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] limit poker & I really dislike No-Limit

I love the fact that in Limit I can flop an underset of KKK to someones AAA; and jam all the way to the river and lose... a few big bets only, not my entire stack.

I love the fact that in Limit I can call down over-aggressive players without major regrets

[Shaun]

No Limit isn't going anywhere. The games that dried up in the past were not capped buy-in games. As long as cardrooms hold capped buy-in games no-limit is here to stay.

In limit the variance is significantly worse. Whoever says otherwise is simply wrong.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
In limit the variance is significantly worse. Whoever says otherwise is simply wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
The variance is larger. That's not the same as worse. IMO, higher variance is better because it is what keeps the games good (bad players run hot and move up; good players bust out or lose their confidence; it makes it harder for people to from their mistakes because the correlation between actions and results is fuzzier).

EDIT: Missed including the word "not" in the second sentence, which is pretty crucial.

[Coffee]

I cut my teeth playing limit, starting at 3/6 and moving up to 10/20. I was reasonably successful, playing a TAGgish game, and just waiting.

NL allows me the freedom to make more moves, play more hands, and get paid off better when I really hit. But...these are all skills I've had to develop after my strictly limit training.

Yet, I don't prefer one to the other, necessarily. I go where the fish are...plain and simple. Right now, all anybody knows is no limit, so that's what I'll play. If it shifts back to limit, then that's fine, too.

Fish are fish, cards are cards, and poker is poker...these things won't change, even if the structures and rules do. People have been gambling for thousands of years, and show no sign of slowing down(the opposite is true, actually). Part of becoming a good player is recognizing where the most money can be made.

So...for that reason...right now...I love NL. Maybe in 5 years, it'll be limit, or stud, or (God help us) Omaha Hi/Lo. It doesn't matter. Every game can be beaten to the point that you can make a profit that is worth having. Else, why would anyone, even the fish, play it?