HU NL vs Limit: Which is the best test of skill?

[bcubed72]

I have read much in the way of poker books, the only one describing HU specifically was Matt Matros. He said that he prefers Limit HU as opposed to NL, basically because NL often turns into two players all-in with good hands and the best hand is somewhat random.

I respectfully disagree, on basically two points.

1. The easiest HU opponent to beat is the "weak/tightie," who thinks he is playing a full ring game. He'll fold anything worse than top pr, and pot-sized bets (or even slight overbets) are the best way to get him to lay down.

2. More importantly is the overly-aggressive a**hole. Against such players, I just love to limp TT+ and wait for a raise. (I might also limp big aces, but need to be basically guarenteed a raise, as AK can be difficult to play if you miss the flop.) Since big hands don't come around that often, limit doesn't punish the aggressor severely enough to make him pay for his aggression. Plus, limp/raise/3 bet isn't scary enough to slow anyone down.

So that's my prference for NL. My experience has been tourneys, however, and perhaps I am missing the point entirely. If anyone can make a valid argument for why limit HU is the better test of skill, I'd like to hear it.

[guitarizt]

After watching the nbc heads up championship both years there was nothing random about the players who made it to the final four both years. I won't list names incase someone hasn't watched them yet though.

[jay_shark]

I happen to agree with Matt Matros on this one .

I try to allocate my time equally between playing nl and limit whether or not it's a cash game or a heads up sng .
If i'm playing in a ring game , then it's more profitable to be playing nl . If you're playing in a heads up sng , then it's fairly close to equal . Surprisingly , I've had better result playing limit hold em , so I don't think Matt is far away from the truth .

Btw , his book was definitely an interesting read .

[jay_shark]

Another interesting point about nl heads up sng's is that if a player decides before hand that he's going to push all in on every hand then that player will still end up winning around 40 % of the time .

This is a mathematical fact which is something i've been aware of for a while . Chris Ferguson also mentioned this in one book that I read which relates to game theory .

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
if a player decides before hand that he's going to push all in on every hand then that player will still end up winning around 40 % of the time .

This is a mathematical fact ...

[/ QUOTE ]

So in some sort of sick universe I could be NBC's HU Champion if I also become a luckbox?

[jay_shark]

The casinos make their living off of winning close edges . I'd certainly wouldn't want to be the guy pushing all in everytime , but nevertheless it's still interesting to know that this strategy will still win it's fair share of the time .

[omgwtfnoway]

i fail to see how that makes hu nl any less skillful, exploiting small edges is solid poker
btw, is 40% is pretty far from "its fair share of the time"

[2461Badugi]

The problem that I have with the idea that HU NLHE is more skillful is that it's so frequently over extremely quickly, even in a fairly deepstacked game. Some of the main skills of a HU player -- changing gears, tilt resistance, opponent manipulation, handreading against a specific opponent, game theory -- just aren't going to exist in a NLHE match most of the time, unless it's the sort of match that involves a lot of rebuys.

By the way, these guys are really easy to beat in LIMCASH as well.

[jay_shark]

omg , imo your win % won't be much different between the two games . I'm not sure what limits you play in , but I have countless games played in limit and nl and based on empirical evidence , there is not much of a difference in your ROI . You can only base your conclusions on empirical date and it's impossible to quantify such a difference between the two structures .

I would welcome any player pushing all in on every hand because 60 % is significant to me . However , for a player incorporating this strategy , 40 % of the time is not bad .
There is really no thinking involved and yet you will still win 4 out of 10 times .

[omgwtfnoway]

[ QUOTE ]
I have countless games played in limit and nl

[/ QUOTE ]
you're starting to sound like a broken record
[ QUOTE ]
based on empirical evidence , there is not much of a difference in my ROI

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP
[ QUOTE ]
You can only base your conclusions on empirical data and it's impossible to quantify such a difference between the two structures.

[/ QUOTE ]
what good is your data then?

[ QUOTE ]
I would welcome any player pushing all in on every hand because 60 % is significant to me . However , for a player incorporating this strategy , 40 % of the time is not bad .

[/ QUOTE ]
not bad? it's terrible, continuing to play when you are guaranteed to be -ev is retarded
[ QUOTE ]
There is really no thinking involved and yet you will still win 4 out of 10 times .

[/ QUOTE ]
still win 4/10? that's like being the tallest midget