|
|
#11
10-28-2007, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why Limit?
As a limit and no-limit player, some things said here struck a nerve with me.
[ QUOTE ] Many decisions in no limit don't go beyond the flop. [/ QUOTE ] You must be talking about some small stakes 40BB buy-in or so no-limit game. A true no-limit game will often have all players in the game with 100BB or sometimes a lot more. With 100BB there's plenty of play after the flop given you have a decent stack. [ QUOTE ] Limit requires you to make good decisions more often than no limit. [/ QUOTE ] While you might have to make more decisions quantitatively, the quality of decisions are much more important in no-limit. Overused, but true mantra: One mistake can cost you your stack in no-limit. [ QUOTE ] All in on the flop and run out the cards to see who's the winner. Obviously, this never happens in limit. [/ QUOTE ] Careful of the use of "never". There are actually many times where a short stack or short buy is almost all-in and the flop/turn/river and even pre-flop decisions are affected by it. [ QUOTE ] Many "winning" no limit players are weak at the math part of the game. [/ QUOTE ] I actually agree with this. You can be successful at no-limit without being great at math. Being a math major and a winning no-limit player, I don't fall in to this bunch. Garland 
|
|
#12
11-04-2007, 04:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Limit?
from a moneymaking perspective tho, i still dont really see the reason to play limit as your main game. the variance is much larger for comparable winrates, and it is more stressful and harder to multitable (at least for me, but i think it should be true for most ppl because youre making so many more decisions each table). so why play lhe as your main game if you are just grinding for money? unless you just enjoy playin limit much more than nl
|
|
#13
11-04-2007, 05:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Limit?
well I play limit for two reasons: I need a much smaller bankroll to play limit and I play it much better than I do NL.
With a $1000 bankroll I have 500 bb at 1/2 which is enough to make sure I don't go broke 99% of the time if I can beat it for 2bb/100. With the same bankroll I could play NL50 if I could beat the game for 8-10 big blinds/100 and still not have 99% probability of not going broke.
|
|
#14
11-04-2007, 07:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Limit?
Over the last 3 years I have about 300k hands in Limit (most of those being at 30/60) and only about 50k hands in NL (I'm transitioning).
During those years, I've been asking myself the same question, "Why limit?" The variance in LHE is greater than NL because your player edge vs your opponents in LHE is less. In stoxtrader's "Well" thread, there were a couple questions and answers that really should turn anyone off from LHE: [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Stox, Why do you play much more NLH than LH these days? Do you prefer NLH now or is there more profitable opportunities in NLH these days? [/ QUOTE ] I think I make more money at NL overall, but I do still play both for sure. [/ QUOTE ] Stox, a LHE master/guru, recently just switched to NL and he's already making "more money at NL overall". [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Hey Stox, First of all thanks for the site. It's been a great help to my game and worth every penny. I have an odd question that I have been wondering for quite some time. If you or someone of your caliber were to play at a 3/6 6max LHE game vs a group of winning players, say a group of regular 3/6 2+2 folks, do you think that you would be able to make a profit? If so what would you guess your BB/100 would be? Just curious since the % of rake is higher than in high limit games if you feel that an elite player would be able to exploit their weaknesses enough to overcome the rake. Hope my question makes sense. [/ QUOTE ] your question makes plenty sense. I think against 5 good regulars at 3/6 max I would certainly have a tough time overcoming the rake AND turning a good profit. I would guess my winrate in that game would be .1-.6bb/100 assuming a reasonable rake. [/ QUOTE ] Stox admits that he would have a tough time turning a profit at small stakes limit hold'em vs 5 regulars. This obviously has a lot to do with rake, but once again it comes down to the difference in skill level being less in limit. While small stakes limit hold'em players are breaking even/barely making a profit/making most of their money off rakeback, small stakes NL players are doubling up once and making what a small stakes NL player makes in a day, maybe two. Top LHE players would be lucky to make $1 million a year while top NL players are making $1 million a month. Limit is so bottle-necked. It's like me trying to win a fight with just punches, when I have Mixed Martial Arts/Grappling experience, what's the point? If you go to a casino, and there are 9 high vpip donks at a NL table, and 9 high vpip donks at LHE table, where do you honestly think you're going to win most of your hands? So...Why Limit?
|
|
#15
11-04-2007, 10:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Limit?
As I respond to your post I want anyone reading this to know I'm not responding as an owner of DeucesCracked or a moderator of this forum (in fact I wish this were posted in another forum just to avoid any question of my bias) but as an outraged limit player at your horrible logic, reasoning, arguments, and debating "tactics".
[ QUOTE ] The variance in LHE is greater than NL because your player edge vs your opponents in LHE is less. [/ QUOTE ] This depends a whole heck of a lot on many variables, such as your skill, game selection, and stakes. I don't see why we should accept this generalization. [ QUOTE ] Stox, a LHE master/guru, recently just switched to NL and he's already making "more money at NL overall". [/ QUOTE ] What do you mean by "recently"? Stox has been playing NL for years. Also his response was: [ QUOTE ] I think I make more money at NL overall, but I do still play both for sure. [/ QUOTE ] To which you conclude that he has "switched to NL"? My reading comprehension could probably use some work but all he said was he plays both and makes more money at NL (which could be due to any number of factors). And finally if your premise that he "switched to NL" which you basically imply means exclusively NL, than it would be obvious that he "makes more money at NL overall" if he exclusively played it and is a winning player! (obv) Oh, and what's with the "LHE master/guru" talk - I've never even spoken to Nick but I would assume this would embarrass him. So what are all the other high stakes limit pros? I'm sure Stox is a great limit player but if you think he has some secret guru skills that other high stakes guys don't you are just placing him on a ridiculous pedestal. [ QUOTE ] Stox admits that he would have a tough time turning a profit at small stakes limit hold'em vs 5 regulars. [/ QUOTE ] Again you basically misquote what he said. A table of 5 2+2 quality winning players is not "5 regulars". And when exactly would this super table even occur? You think all the regular 3/6 6 max 2+2ers are just sitting around passing chips back and forth with each other hoping they can break even and collect rakeback? Come on. [ QUOTE ] once again it comes down to the difference in skill level being less in limit. [/ QUOTE ] This conclusion is just a huge leap in logic from the first sentence quoted above. Nobody asked Nick how he would fare at a small stakes NL table of 5 winning 2+2ers either, why would you conclude he would expect to crush that hypothetical game? [ QUOTE ] While small stakes limit hold'em players are breaking even/barely making a profit/making most of their money off rakeback [/ QUOTE ] Where does this even come from? You are just making these things up as you go aren't you? You're saying if I go over to the small stakes shorthanded forum right now and ask the regular posters for their results for the last few months, I'm going to find on average they are breaking even? If you truly believe this I'd love to test that theory out. [ QUOTE ] small stakes NL players are doubling up once and making what a small stakes NL player makes in a day, maybe two. [/ QUOTE ] I'll assume you meant "small stakes limit player" in the second part of that sentence. What does this sentence even mean? One, the stakes for the limit and NL player would obviously have to be known to have a fair comparison. Two, apparently in NL all I have to do is wait until I double up and then I can quit for the day! I guess NL players never have a losing day or even lose a buyin huh? [ QUOTE ] Top LHE players would be lucky to make $1 million a year while top NL players are making $1 million a month. Limit is so bottle-necked. [/ QUOTE ] As with the rest of your vague generalities, this would depend on your definition of "top". Which NL players are making a million a month by the way? Highstakesdb.com shows only a couple people up over a million on the year, shouldn't there be a few making 12 million or so according to you? I read a lot of posts on 2+2, including BBV, and I can only think of ONE person who has made a million dollars in a month that was posted about - that would be The Bryce in October at guess what - LIMIT. [ QUOTE ] If you go to a casino, and there are 9 high vpip donks at a NL table, and 9 high vpip donks at LHE table, where do you honestly think you're going to win most of your hands? [/ QUOTE ] This gibberish pretty much means nothing as far as I can read and understand, but if the other "donks" at the table all have a high vpip you are probably going to be playing pretty tight to exploit that. And who cares where I win the most hands? I'm trying to win the most MONEY. -DeathDonkey
|
|
#16
11-04-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Limit?
Wow DD just got unleashed.
I was going to respond to that poster but it seems like he covered pretty much everything I was going to say and then some, so I'll offer up my .02 on the the topic. I can't remember which 2+2 author said it, maybe Ed Miller but I don't wanna misquote anyone. Anyway, they said that the profitability in NL vs Limit favor NL at the lower stakes but eventually inverse as you go up in stakes. They didn't expound upon it but I personally think this is because NL is about forcing your opponent to make a few big mistakes in a session, whereas Limit profitability derives from forcing your opponents to make a lot of little mistakes. As you move up in stakes the overall skill of your opponent goes up as well. It becomes harder as you move up to goad opponents into making these big mistakes, and it requires more overall skill to convince them to do so. That being said why do I play Limit as a small stakes player? Because that's where my head is at. I've put a lot of time into my limit game and I think that it is a little bit more profitable for ME to play my Limit game than to play NL while learning the ins and outs of the game. You are going to want to learn limit eventually, and not just limit Hold'Em. Learn every game, pick one that works for you and run with it a while. When you get tired of that pick up a different one and learn that one while playing. It's amazing how much stuff crosses over, and how many "pitfalls" of each particular game you avoid by having just played a different one. That, at least for me, is one of the keys for keeping poker both fun AND profitable.
|
|
#19
11-05-2007, 05:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Limit?
Top mid-stakes limit players make 1-2BB/100. Top NL mid-stakes players make 3-5PTBB/100. If you divide by session stdev, it works out to a very similar ratio.
The distribution of NL "returns" has fatter tails than limit, so in the short-run one can experience larger swings (relative to expected return) in NL than limit. This works for some people, doesn't for others. So "why limit" might just be personal preference. Where the discussion gets interesting is high stakes. If I was a very good player at a table full of pretty good players, I'd rather be playing NL. That is probably what Stox was trying to say. But there is a certain unproveability to that statement because who knows who is good and who is very good? The fat tails of NL can make anyone look great for a while. Given your history in limit, what winrate do you expect to achieve in NL that justifies a switch? Is that winrate feasible? These are the questions you'd need to ask.
|
|
#20
11-05-2007, 06:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Limit?
[ QUOTE ]
So...Why ever post again? -DeathDonkey Real mature. [/ QUOTE ] DD is from the old school 2p2 where you weren't good unless you got flamed. I have said over and over, if I wasn't constantly flamed by Clarkmeister, majorkong, El Diablo and others, I would have never gotten better at poker and if I wasn't able to take it, I would have never had a chance!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
