Limit Vs. No Limit - which requires more skills
notebook1975
he is (TheMiner, I'll leave it up to you) stated the following:
"eh I stick to my belief that Limit Hold Em has minimum to no skill
involved. So
what you are basically saying is that you stick around until your
fishing
abilities start catching cards right?"
I want to discuss this - As I hear this a lot. I play both and here's
my opinion and my response:
Limit is a game of MINUTE advantages.
Anyone can maximize his nut hands in NL when some schmo pushes all
in on a bluff, or protect a quesionable hand with a ridiculous overbet,
or force a heads up with Aces, etc.
However, it takes a real player to be successful at limit hold'em. You
have to
play position, take advantage of weaker players (not shorter stacks),
minimize losses by reading situations and analyzing pot odds and
players and maximize profits
on statistically acceptable draws.
I guarantee if you sat down at my table with that mentality, it
might take me a while, depending on the limit, but I'd clean you out.
MysteriAce
The argument is moot. They both require different skill sets (like any
two games compared with eachother), but are equally difficult to be an
expert at.
Your comment that "anyone can [do such and such]" in NL holdem is equally
as flawed as the argument that limit poker is "all luck".
~ MysteriAce
"All those eyes are just crowding up your human face ... "
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Skorkles
"Limit poker is a science, but no-limit is an art. In limit, you are
shooting at a target. In no-limit, the target comes alive and shoots back at
you."
I have no idea what that means.
"notebook1975" <kimmer_...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1147191128....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
XFactor
If Limit was easier (i.e. requires no skill) why is it that NL is so
populated with new players, many of whom look for low-stakes (i.e.
$.50/$1) in order to double their buy-in in a hurry. There is no BIG SCORE
in Limit; a successful night is determined by the accumulation of correct
decisions and winning extra bets. Anyone can sit down at a NL table, get
in cheap with a rag hand like 34, flop a wheel, bust out someone holding
an Ace, and then brag about what a great player they are. Both games offer
a different environment, thus a different strategy.
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
TheMiner
true game. Its for old timers who do not have the balls to play a real game
which is NLH.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Jim Anderson (thejim2020)
Each of us has our preferences. I also don't think either is easier
or harder than limit O8 or PLO. They're all different games.
ChrisBrown
> I agree with you notebook. I think Limit is much more difficult to play.
> If Limit was easier (i.e. requires no skill) why is it that NL is so
> populated with new players,
cuz that's what they see on tv.
> There is no BIG SCORE
> in Limit; a successful night is determined by the accumulation of correct
> decisions and winning extra bets.
You should tell that to the asian lady who rivered to win just about every
hand she played (and she played every hand she was dealt) last time i went
to the cardroom. she was up at least 50-100BB in the ~2 hours i was there.
ChrisBrown
> I want to discuss this - As I hear this a lot. I play both and here's
> my opinion and my response:
>
> Limit is a game of MINUTE advantages.
i vehemently disagree. when i play limit i've seen players have an
advantage for hours.
> However, it takes a real player to be successful at limit hold'em.
i vehemently disagree. Poki kicked my ass for a while at HU limit hold'em
> You have to
> play position, take advantage of weaker players (not shorter stacks),
> minimize losses by reading situations and analyzing pot odds and
> players and maximize profits on statistically acceptable draws.
Sounds alot like what i did when i played NL.
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Neil Schulman
available to you as it is in NL. There are different skill sets involved in
both, but for The Miner to make such a comment is ignorant of reality.
_______________________________________________________________
notebook1975
about "getting rivered" don't understand the limit concept. the true
goal is not (like it NL) to get your money in when you have the best of
it - although you should when you can... the most profitable plays come
from getting your money into BIG pots and drawing for flushes, nut
straights, etc. against players who think they can batter the pot with
bet after bet.
That's why you'll see the "TV-guided" players scream at the table when
their pocket aces lose to an obvious flush and/or straight draw on the
turn... I have a great limit-playing buddy who told me early on "pocket
kings" are "just kings" and asked would I play a K-5 to the end if
their was a king on the board in limit?
They yell suckout, but you were in the pot with three people and
should've known they were drawing.
In limit, you often have to play the potential of hands to maximize
them AND analyze when someone's got the best of your pocket pairs.
Bryan K
"notebook1975" <kimmer_...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1147191128....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> he is (TheMiner, I'll leave it up to you) stated the following:
>
> "eh I stick to my belief that Limit Hold Em has minimum to no skill
> involved. So
> what you are basically saying is that you stick around until your
> fishing
> abilities start catching cards right?"
>
> I want to discuss this - As I hear this a lot. I play both and here's
> my opinion and my response:>
> Limit is a game of MINUTE advantages.
It's a game of minute advantages and awareness of knowing exactly when those
advantages creep up. In order to be successful long term, one can't miss
many of these. In no-limit, I think it is quite possible to be quite
successful without picking up on all of these small advantages, though the
more advantages one is aware of, the better his long term results will be.
>
> Anyone can maximize his nut hands in NL when some schmo pushes all
> in on a bluff, or protect a quesionable hand with a ridiculous overbet,
>
> or force a heads up with Aces, etc.
Here is the biggest difference, IMHO, and I heard it at a poker table
recently. "If you take away the all-in, you take away the donkey's biggest
weapon." I believe that to be true.
>
> However, it takes a real player to be successful at limit hold'em. You
> have to
> play position, take advantage of weaker players (not shorter stacks),
> minimize losses by reading situations and analyzing pot odds and
> players and maximize profits
> on statistically acceptable draws.
>
> I guarantee if you sat down at my table with that mentality, it
> might take me a while, depending on the limit, but I'd clean you out.
Here's what I think. NLHE is the game where the pros make the most money.
Why? Because it also happens to be the game with the most luck involved,
therefore, it keeps bringing the donkeys back for more. Short term, a NLHE
game with a maniac or two at the table is the heaviest variance form of
poker I know. I'll admit that I'm a bit green when it comes to some kinds
of poker, but let's just say that I've had at least four hands over the
course of my poker career playing NL where I have, in one hand, lost more
than my entire one night losing limit playing LHE. I dislike the game
because, even though I've proven to myself that I can play it profitably,
the beats still hurt.
LHE is a game where it is just not possible to be a long term winner without
knowing any of the math behind the game. Yes, I know there are players out
there who can look at a pot and estimate that it would be a wise call in
certain situations. However, these same players are the ones who aren't
going to pick up on all of the subtle advantages that pop up from time to
time. These are the kinds of guys who won't raise from the BB with any A
after action folded to a limping SB. These are the kinds of guys who won't
raise from the small blind with pocket J's after eight players have limped
because they don't understand they are getting the prerequisite amount of
callers to make going for a set (and nothing but a set) a long term EV+
move. These are the kinds of guys who will call a raise preflop with KQo,
but won't call that raise with 67s no matter how many other callers are in
the hand. These are the kinds of guys that don't understand that if I catch
15 outs on the flop, I'm a heavy favorite against the guy who caught bottom
two pair AND the guy who caught TPTK even though I might not even have a
pair.
There is different skill set required to play each game, to be sure.
However, the skill set involved in being a successful NLHE player is much
easier to master than the skill set involved in being a successful LHE
player. LHE is tough to master, but once all of the basics are down, 95% of
the game is like clockwork. On the other hand, I also believe that becoming
a master at NLHE will yield much better long term results. Of course, a
large part of my reasoning for this is because of the sheer number of fish
who play at the NLHE tables in relation to the LHE tables because of the
first point I made in this paragraph.
Bryan K
>I agree the different skill sets are there. I also think guys who talk
> about "getting rivered" don't understand the limit concept. the true
> goal is not (like it NL) to get your money in when you have the best of
> it - although you should when you can...
I think there is a very slight difference here between forms of poker. In
NL, you are correct. All you can do is bet when you're ahead and hope your
opponent calls.
In LHE, you need to make sure you are putting as much money in the pot as
possible when you are ahead of the pot equity curve while keeping the money
that is going in as close to the pot equity curve as possible.
ki...@practicallowandnolimitholdem.com
Good points to which I can only add that you will see people going
just as nuts at 4/8 with Kill games as the $100 NL buy-ins.
It takes patience at both. A lot of people have a "what the heck"
attitude or watch too much tv and still will want to play something to
the river to justify their time at the table if the stakes aren't too
high.
And sometimes they catch it at my expense :)..
Kiml Greenblatt
www.practicallowandnolimitholdem.com
Mike Mosh
different types of limit games...
I be damned if $1-$2 & $3-$6 are the same as $10-$20 $20-$40 etc...
That being said,the skill goes to No Limit...
Over the long term the skilled players take over the lucky players. I
guess that could be said in both games but there has to be less people
chasing to the river & seeing flops in NL
notebook1975
"Over the long term the skilled players take over the lucky players. I
guess that could be said in both games but there has to be less people
chasing to the river & seeing flops in NL"
Relates back to Bryan's point regarding equity arguments.
And this:
"That being said,the skill goes to No Limit..."
Is countered by an earlier post (that I can't find) that mentions that
the biggest games played (and ever played) in Vegas are played over a
Limit table. Rarely do you hear about awesome NL games outside of
tourneys (or online) and there is NO-ONE (even amongst the pros) that
would ever say that a key element of tournament NLHE is luck. It's just
interesting that the best players prefer the "limit" concept but the
"skill" is on the NL side... hmmm?
By the way, has anyone heard from Chris MoneyMaker in a while?
notebook1975
disclaimer:
notebook1975 posts this line sarcastically but to reiterate his point
regarding skill versus luck: To clarify, Chris Moneymaker began the
"NL" tourney boom and made everyone feel like they understand the game.
Like Dexy's Midnight Runners and Tony Basil before him, Mr. Moneymaker
cashed in through luck and has not been heard from again - other than
at conventions where his "skill" continues to pay off. Notebook
strongly believes that "skill" is a questionable word when used in the
context of the # of NL players cashing in today.
notebook1975
"NO-ONE (even amongst the pros) that would ever say that a key element
of tournament NLHE is NOT luck."
Lost the word NOT in my haste to type.
Overseer55
> the biggest games played (and ever played) in Vegas are played over a
> Limit table
The fundamental reason for this is variance. Although the variance at
a limit table is high, the variance at a NL table is absurdly high.
The LV pros are probably more comfortable risking $10 million playing
$50k/$100k limit than $10k/$20k NL. Of course, this is just a
speculation.
- Mark
notebook1975
minimum buy-ins of $50,000 and $120,000 - the games that are actually
spread - and if the pros were interested in making 2 bb.hr, couldn't
they make even more playing at the lower buy-in NL tables for less
time? Sure variance sucks, but these guys (the pros) are gamblers
extrodinaire and why wouldnt they rather risk $20,000 buyins at weaker
NL tables if they believe its purely skill?
Overseer55
1) There is absolutely no way that the minimum buy-in for a high-limit
game is 100 BB. The minimum buy-in at a $300/$600 game is probably
$10k (or $5k, if we quote Rounders).
2) No one believes that NL (or limit) is purely skill.
3) No one believes that limit (or NL) is purely luck.
4) It is impossible to quantify how much more "skillful" NL is than
limit (if at all).
5) Not all poker players are gamblers extraordinare.
6) Some people are better limit players than NL players
7) Some people detest NL.
8) Although I haven't worked it out, I suspect that, given an equal
risk of ruin, the absolute $/hr potential for limit is equal to or
higher than a NL game. Since the variance is higher, the "safe" NL
stakes is lower than the "safe" limit stakes. So, even though the
BB/hr is higher for a NL game, the absolute $/hr potential is likely
lower.
9) Whales that want to experience "playing with the pros" probably
don't want to lose everything in 1 hand...they would be much happier
losing everything over a 4 hour session (based on things I've read in
some gambling books). Therefore, it is worthwhile for the pros to play
limit with a whale that is likely going to be injecting a considerable
amount of money into the game.
10) In an online context, I think it is easier to play multiple limit
games effectively than multiple NL games effectively (especially at
meaningful limits).
Personally, I would rather grind out another player's stack at a limit
table over a few hours (with very little risk to my own stack) than
play NL, giving him a decent chance (albeit less than 50%) of taking
out my entire stack in a single hand.
- Mark
Randy Hudson
notebook1975 <kimmer_...@juno.com> wrote:
> Limit is a game of MINUTE advantages.
Not really minute; a blackjack card counter with a true of +3 will put out a
big bet with a 1% advantage. Value bets at limit typically have edges of
20-50%. What is different is that the size of the bet is limited, so you
get that percentage applied to one bet at a time. On the other hand, you
push that bet out there much more often at limit than NL.
Each bet's outcome is influenced by the skill of the players involved, and
by how the probability wave collapses for the cards to come. At NL, there
are fewer bets, each more significant; at limit, there are many more
decisions, many more bets, and the cumulative value of all the decisions
ends up similar.
Because of this, NL tournament play tends to be about playing well while not
making big mistakes, while Limit tournament play tends to be about
consistently making the best play, with an occasional clunker generally not
being fatal.
Limit tends to be more tiring, because you are making so many decisions.
No-limit is of course more stressfull, because each decision carries such
risk.
--
Randy Hudson
notebook1975
2) agreed
3) agreed
4) agreed
5) Not all poker players are gamblers extraordinare - I meant only
those who commonly play the big game - Lederer, Farha, Brunson, Harmon,
Forrest, etc, etc.
6) agreed
7) agreed
8) I like this point alot - very interesting I agree
9) I disagree here - "whales" are just like the rest of the country,
they saw last year's WSOP and want to be just like Joseph Hachem...
Few, if any whales before the boom headed to Vegas for poker... they
were there for the otehr "table" games and that's why casinos shot for
them.. if they are spending money in the high-roller casinos (where
there are rarely rakes, but instead time fees) the casino is losing
money on that proposed "whale"
10) agreed, and its the NL players playing there that can make it
profitable. Because there is such a HUGE difference. When you here
another player say "nice river" or "very lucky" when someone hits their
flush or open ended straight on the river, you can guess they're either
a NL player or a novice, because - again - mathematics is the name of
the limit game, getting your money in when you have the best of the
"implied odds"
See, we weren't that far off, plus I agree completely with the last
point. You're just more eloquent.
Peace.
notebook1975
- notebook1975
da pickle
> Limit tends to be more tiring, because you are making so many decisions.
Very well said. The term "grinding" is used when referring to limit play.
> No-limit is of course more stressfull, because each decision carries such
> risk.
Also very well said. The tiring/stressful dichotomy is useful. Thanks.
Overseer55
first place? :)
- Mark
trou...@hotmail.com
"1) Traditionally, at all casinos, minimum buy is exactly that 100xs "
Please clarify. I am certain that the minimum for 4-8 limit at a
casino is not $800. Or $400. Or even $100.
Trout
Irish Mike
up to $100/$200. In my opinion there is no question that the highest level
of skill is required in 7 card stud. This is for five (5) primary reasons:
1. Card memory requirement.
2. Position can change with every card dealt.
3. There is an extra betting round.
4. Hand odds are more difficult to calculate.
5. You never know the nut hand even after the river card is dealt. For
example, in Stud a player can have quads with out a pair on his board.
A weak stud player has very little chance against a good stud player. If
all of the "Hold'em experts" out there had to switch to 7 Stud, most of them
would go broke.
Irish Mike
"notebook1975" <kimmer_...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1147271622.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
notebook1975
is $80 and $10-$20 is $200 for example). An earlier poster indicated
that this was too little, but 100 BBs is more than enough to handle any
swings in a single game for any length of session. At the higher
limits with tougher players, you're probably going to need a bit more
for the agrressive table, but, 100 is probably WAY too much.
da pickle
"notebook1975"
> 1) Traditionally, at all casinos, minimum buy is exactly that 100xs
I believe that 10 times the big blind is more standard, but I could be
wrong.
L...@unreal.invalid
Agree with others, an excellent analysis. Thanks
Lou
Corinthian McVitie Keogh
> Limit is tiring...NL is stressful...why are we playing poker in the
> first place? :)
We need a rest from sex?
--
It's five o'clock somewhere
Howard Beale
10X small blind at Casino Arizona for limit.
Howard Beale
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Corinthian McVitie Keogh
> On May 10 2006 9:50 AM, da pickle wrote:
>
> > "notebook1975"
> >
> > > 1) Traditionally, at all casinos, minimum buy is exactly that 100xs
> >
> > I believe that 10 times the big blind is more standard, but I could be
> > wrong.
>
> 10X small blind at Casino Arizona for limit.
You gotta be crazy to sit down with less than 40sb tho.
mdsmith
game to beat at this point in time because of all of the young,
inexperienced, bad card players. This is true up to the 5/10 NL online
games and 10/20 NL live games. The players in a Limit game are much
much better. The funny thing is ... most of them know if they shift
to NL they'd be more profitable, but they're content to grind out a
dependable win rate to avoid the swings in NL. The other intangible is
that the Limit players are far less irritating than the typical NL
douchebag that you have to deal with. Nothing is more irritating than
some moron playing 2/4 no limit with a card protector, pair of Oakleys,
iPod and his entire roll on the table :)
Matt
David Nicoson
> I want to discuss this - As I hear this a lot. I play both and here's
> my opinion and my response:
>
>
> in on a bluff, or protect a quesionable hand with a ridiculous overbet,
>
> or force a heads up with Aces, etc.
>
> have to
> play position, take advantage of weaker players (not shorter stacks),
> minimize losses by reading situations and analyzing pot odds and
> players and maximize profits
> on statistically acceptable draws.
>
> I guarantee if you sat down at my table with that mentality, it
> might take me a while, depending on the limit, but I'd clean you out.
Once we start identifiying ourselves as limit players or no-limit
players, the whole discussion gets emotional. I respect winners in any
game as they have found a niche and succeeded.
Now if I parse your post correctly, it's easy to win at no-limit, but
it's hard to win at limit. And therefore, I play . . .
davidwatts
Personally, I think NLHE is a little easier than LHE, which is
why I play it. I respect the hell out of guys who make consistent
money at LHE. There's nothing easy about it.
dw
Howard Beale
I was wrong anyway. It's 10x the BB. No sleep last night.
HB
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com