limit vs nlh

[BIG CHEESE]

it seams to me limit is how most pros make a living on line.
is that the case?

[KSOT]

No.

[heater]

Welcome to 2004.

[TheScientist]

Most of us who started at limit are cursing the day. NLHE would have made me a lot more money and saved me a lot of headaches.
It's even worse when you try to switch because of everyone telling you how easy it is, and then you find out you suck. (Okay, I'm in the minority here, a TON of limit players have started playing NL with success.)

[Limit_Donkey]

Firstly I will say that I am a consistant winner playing limit but am not a winning player at NL ring yet so you may take this as sour grapes however I hear so much crap about how much better no limit is than limit and I really can't see why.

To me limit is much easier to multi table and you dont get into positions where you spend hours building a big stack only to lose it all in one hand when when your AA loses to a suckout, be it KK turning into a set etc.. To me that is much more frustrating than not being able to bet people of pots in limit.

Another issue is when people quote win rates for no limit they say 5bigblinds/100 etc, well if you play $100NL that is $5/100 right? whilst risking the $100 buy in, if you compare that to $2-4 limit and starting with $100 with a win rate of 2.5bigbets/100 you are making $10/100 am I missing something here? To achieve a similar win rate in no limit you would have to be playing 200NL and therefore risking twice the money for the same return.

Is my logic flawed?

[Josh.]

[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah this pretty much sums it up. now that there are ample middle and upper limit NL games, more and more people are playing NL. 2 years ago the biggest NL on party was 2/4 with a $200 cap

[Ali shmali]

i make 25 bucks an hour off a 1k roll at limit. Is that possible at NL. I do not play NL but have always wondered what the difference in wage is. Like donkey says there are nuances that are not taken into account. If all you play is 1 table you might be better off at NL, but if you are multi-tabling with a small roll, you might be better off at limit.

[Megenoita]

There are still hundreds of pros who make their living playing limit only, and many of them enjoy the fact that rakeback for them is much larger than in no limit.

[TheScientist]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly I will say that I am a consistant winner playing limit but am not a winning player at NL ring yet so you may take this as sour grapes however I hear so much crap about how much better no limit is than limit and I really can't see why.

To me limit is much easier to multi table and you dont get into positions where you spend hours building a big stack only to lose it all in one hand when when your AA loses to a suckout, be it KK turning into a set etc.. To me that is much more frustrating than not being able to bet people of pots in limit.

Another issue is when people quote win rates for no limit they say 5bigblinds/100 etc, well if you play $100NL that is $5/100 right? whilst risking the $100 buy in, if you compare that to $2-4 limit and starting with $100 with a win rate of 2.5bigbets/100 you are making $10/100 am I missing something here? To achieve a similar win rate in no limit you would have to be playing 200NL and therefore risking twice the money for the same return.

Is my logic flawed?

[/ QUOTE ]

5 PTBB/100 is actually 10x the big bet, or $10/100 hands at 100NL. And while sure, your whole stack of $100 is at risk, it is widely agreed that there is less variance in no limit. (The long run can be a very long time for a limit player.) And I dont think you can compare 2/4 limit with 100NL for an hourly rate comparison, apples and oranges. (Though, yes, in terms of bankroll req's, 2/4 and 100NL are similar)

By the way...who's running at 2.5 BB these days and playing 2/4 or higher? (Not too many) I think 5PTBB/100 is a much more dependable number.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
many of them enjoy the fact that rakeback for them is much larger than in no limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying you are wrong, but this does not make a whole hell of a lot of sense. I mean, I guess there is som psychic comfort in a nice RB payment, but still.