Limit vs No Limit?

So I have been playing some limit holdem lately and it just seems like the majority of people are weak players. I am playing at lower limits, but compared to the no limit players that I am used playing against, the limit players are just terrible. They definitely call a much wider range of hands than no limit players. I understand that by playing limit, my winnings will be at a slower pace, but I feel like its easier to keep the loses at a minimum. What is everyone elses opinions on this? Pros vs cons of each?

I've played limit, the variance is crazy. If you have a better brain/head for limit games, its a fine game to play. But if you were equally skilled, then no limit will earn you more money.

If you like the weak players at limit holdem you should try out some omaha hi/lo, or even a bit of razz. Some of the low limit games are a bit more tricky but in most of them the play is just laughable. Learn the fundamentals and rake in the pots.

You could even try the low buy in tournaments. I played the pot limit omaha 150$ freeroll on full tilt and finished in the top 40 out of 7500, must have been the 3rd or 4th time I played omaha in my life, just learned the starting hands and some basic strategy.

The only problem with limit is that winning money is slower than sh**e coming out the neck of a bottle, and sometimes annoying when playing in 6-7 player pots and being outdrawn a few times in a row

Good luck and have fun

Limit games have traditionally been bankroll builders, then you go take a shot at a NL game looking to make a big score. Since you can grind a limit game til there is nothing left of it, you can earn a decent win more often, but no limit is way more exciting and can boost your bankroll by 4 - 5 buyins.

Pros can live off the money they make at a limit table, especially hi lo games.

I like No Limit games because there are times where you need to bet high and get others out of the pot. That can't be done in limit, its only a min. raise so they can just call it and suck out.

But in No Limit you can bet high and get the people you want out of there, out of there.

They get better pot odds and they call wider? How terrible of them indeed...

At lower levels I don't really see a huge difference, weak players are bound to show up. I haven't played many higher level games, but I immediately saw a difference in the style of play.
But I could still point out a few differences between limit and no limit. In no limit, there are no useless 'all ins' from weaker players who get lucky on the turn or river and get by you with a 2-7 off suite. I still prefer no limit because, aside from some players, the potential to win big outweighs this minor inconvenience.

No limit is and will always be the only way to go when playing cards in my opinion.Going all in is pure genius when you got it and even when you don't.Limit holdem is just a slower way to take someone else's cash.What's the point.No limit is the way to go.No limit texas holdem is great and nothing can compare!

Limit and NL are different games. There is no "better" or "worse." I like them both.

Yes, you can win a couple of buy-ins in NL -- but you can also lose a couple of buy-ins. Or more. You can lose a whole buy-in in one hand that you played completely correctly. You can lose your whole bankroll in minutes at a NL table.

I seldom lose a buy-in playing limit, but regularly double up. It can take awhile. It's a slower game, with many more adjustments in each hand you play. Precisely because it's hard to force a calling station out of the hand, you play them differently than you do someone who is likely to fold when he has missed. (And calling stations abound in limit -- just accept that. It's part of that game.) You are correct that it's tough to bully others in limit -- it's doable but not easy if they do not cooperate. It's a steadier game -- less risk, less quick gain. But a steady progress. It's less dramatic, more subtle. Less adrenaline, more thought. And when you get smashed on the river in a hand, you usually don't lose your stack and feel all tilty. There's something to be said for that.

How many times in NL would you have loved to stay in a hand with the nut flush draw or an open end straight, but the other person bet too much to make the call viable? Well, in limit, you can do it -- which is why the range of hands is greater in limit. The pot odds and implied odds let people hold on to drawing hands. And, if you have TPTK you need to take that into account. No use whining about it -- it's part of that game. It's seldom you get to the river without having considered what the other person might have (although I suppose some people do.) If you are worried about how the hand is going, you can slow down the betting in a way you only wish you could do in NL. (Unless you get squeezed -- but even then there is a cap on the betting.)

I was reading Negreanu's book on small ball (NL) poker and I think that, in great part, he has taken what he knows about limit and applied it to his NL game. He's a great limit player, but the big money is in the NL tourneys. I see small ball as a way to make the sort of plays in NL that one does in limit.

And, BTW, tight play and semi-tight is still good in limit. It still pays off. But some people don't seem to get that -- which can make limit play rewarding. Why in the world would you complain about people who play sort of carelessly? No, you can't figure out what they have, but what they have is likely to be a worse hand than what you have. That's a nice situation to be in. Most of the time, you will win -- and the times they suck out, you don't have to lose much. It's not really a good game for LAGs -- although, at some tables, for a little while, a LAG can do well. It depends.

I find limit games to be infuriating. I really like to be able to try to shove someone off of a pot when the time calls for it. In limit you give people chasing their straights and flushes much better odds for calling.

Firt to fall is that LIMIT is bored for me, is a type of poker that can 't show how is the player, because is too slow, you can see a lot of hands, etc.....and sure you can lose with a go hand vs a bad hand.

In no limit is totally different because you can be as diferent as you want to do. You can be agressive, tigh, a donk, etc.

I think people that play LIMIT don 't want risk in their hands and money. I hate LIMIT......if you want play this firt be patient, you can ' t be crazy or donk is this type of game.

You don't see too many uber donks who keep rebuying in NL cash games. Donks lose their money more slowly in LHE, making them much more likely to rebuy/play LHE again when they finally go busto.

limit does have a very low variance.
but playing this game takes a lot of consideration to avoid tilt.
yup a lot of players play with a wider range of hands and would protect
their mid pair up to the very end. so getting sucked out is a common thing
in this field.

if you are not in a hurry to build up your BR, then this is for you...

...and the Rakeback in limit games is higher...!!!

Lol.

The variance is not all that low -- especially when NL players come over to the tables and keep raising with crap. Their variance is huge. j/k

And I think of it as being not in a hurry to lose my bankroll.

Limit is a frustrating boring grind and your edge will always be less because of fixed bet sizes.

Plus, at micro stakes the rake makes it a joke to play.

Avoid limit at all costs IMHO.

Well it seems like most are for NL here.

My question is are there Limit Winning players here. If so at what stake and how much?

There are essential differences between limit hold'em and no limit hold'em besides the esthetic one that involves the presence of absence of limits.
For once, when you are playing no limit hold'em you play a more methodic game. A skilled player can easily develop and apply strategies in no limit hold'em, much easier than in limit games. If you are a beginner then no-limit is not the game for you, but limit is the perfect one. Limit protects new comers and doesn't let them loose too much. If you are a skilled player and you encounter a beginner in a no limit poker room then you can easily take advantage of his presence and make a lot of money out of him. As they say, sky is the limit and here the sky is the beginner's stack. Big mistakes are paid dearly in no-limit, you will just go all-in and lose all your stack. But in limit if the same mistake is made then it is not such a big deal, it just means that if you pass a few mediocre bets you will be right where you started.
In no limit hold'em you can use psychology more often and it turns out to be more reliable. This happens mostly because in no limit more money are involved and the risk of losing them all at once because of one single bad call is greater. At the end in limit hold'em all the hands are shown because of the concept that the best hand wins. But in no limit this doesn't have to happen, you can show the hand only if you want to. In limit you can play a person, make them fold and in the end it would turn out that you had a bad hand. Now everyone knows you bluffed that person and you won't get another opportunity to do it again. In no limit it is much easier to tell others' game style and much harder to use psychology and to play others. You can do one trick once, but after that you'll have to change it in to limit because the "word" will be out.
Position counts in both game types. But position count a lot more n no limit games. Even though in both games the worst position is the early position and the best one is the late position, there is a big difference on how position affects your hand. In no limit if you are in early position the chances that you get trapped are bigger. There is no risk free way to play a hand here, no matter how good it is. It all depends on the other players and the impression they have of you. You can play ruff and end up losing a lot or cautiously and end up being trapped because other can tell that you are not sure of the hand you are holding.