Any Limit HE players here?

So, I'm thinking about giving limit hold 'em a try, I know some of its basics, (I'm mainly a NLHE and PLO player myself) and was wondering who on here already plays it a fair bit.
Maybe we could arrange some games or I could rail you guys to try to pick things up or something to improve my own game.
Anyways I'd love to hear from you guys.

I venture to say our foremost resident expert on LHE would be F. Paulsson (http://www.cardschat.com/members/f-paulsson/).

Ive usually play 0.10/0.20 LHE and L omaha hi/low on stars.
Ive still got a lot to learn and im better at L omaha hi/low than LHE.
If you havnt got super system 2, you should get it. It teaches you some really good limit strategy for all games.

Just wondering but are you a winning no limit player?

Basically Limit at micro games (<0.25/0.50) are best hand wins games, in that almost always the hands go to showdown and people will play any pair even bottom pair on a ace high flop when it is capped. You can win regulary on the 25c 50c Pacific Poker FLHE games simply by playing big cards and using a hit or fold on the flop strategey.

Hope this helps you.

Sure, you can rail me if you like. I play on Stars, usually the $5/$10 6-max games. If we can get a whole table together that would be cool too (we could play micro limits for practise, of course) but playing heads-up is not going to be a healthy exercise. Heads-up limit hold 'em is one of the most insane forms of poker there is, heh.

Generic piece of advice:

If

NLHE is a game of implied odds, then
Limit hold 'em is a game of pot odds, and
Shorthanded limit hold 'em is a game of equity.

If you guys ever get a table going when I am around I would join you. I have lots of experience playing limit sng's - and some lower limit ring games. Wouldn't mind re-visiting it once in a while and learning more about it.

Would that make PLHE a game of implied pot?

So Freddie, do you find it easier (in general) to beat 6-max LHE than 10 max LHE? I'm ask for two reasons:
1. You play significantly more LHE than I do.
2. When I played on my last cruise, all they would allow was $5/$10 LHE. Now I realize that my sample size was small (estimating 600-700 hands by my notes), but with all of the people willing to chase to the river (even at 5/10) I was about break even for the full table, but I was killing short handed (5-6 seats).

I think a full ring table is "easier" to beat in that it's safer. I believe there's more money to be made at a 6-max table, but it requires you to deal with more psychological stress and it makes it necessary to adjust to individual opponents more than a full table does. A full table can be beaten mostly by just leaning back and playing big hands.

Guess I'll just chalk it up to running well. Though I do have to wonder if my beating the short handed table truly was related to having fewer inexperience players at the table to work around so aggression with them worked better. At the full table (10 max), it wasn't that unusual to have 6 (or even 7 people on occassion) see the flop or even to have 3 at the showdown. The nice thing about it was that it became quickly apparent who the few "better" players were when they showed up. And we tended to avoid each other in most cases unless hands really warranted playing.