Am I wasting my time with limit?

I've been playing micro/low limit holdem with goals to move up to higher levels. However,it seems as if all the real action is on the NL side of the cash game. My plan was to use limit as a stepping stone for an eventual transition to NL, but it seems so much of the literature/discussions are related to NL (not to mention the milder swings NL has - or so I've read) that I'm wondring whether it's even worth spending my time with limit. Is NL generally more profitable? And speaking of profits, what are respectable win rates one should strive to achieve? I'm not a beginner, but I do have some flaws I've been working out and my original plan was to work on my fundamentals on limit and once I got comfortable, I would transition to NL. Just curious to hear others thoughts...

To my way of thinking, playing limit poker as a stepping stone with the primary goal of transitioning to NL is not the way to go. In my experience, limit and NL cash games are distinctly different and require different skillsets as well as approaches. Strategies that work beautifully in NL can spell trouble in limit, and vice versa. Barry Tannenbaum has a regular column in CardPlayer magazine on limit poker--if you read a few of his articles you'll begin to see how. Doyle Brunson's Super System 2 has a wonderful chapter on limit written by Jennifer Harmon, who some say is the best limit poker player in the world.

You're right about the focus being on NL as far as discussions etc go. NL games tend to be far more dramatic because the swings can be wilder, not milder and I do believe you can make a whole lot more money within a given time frame playin NL if you are running good. Also, NL is widely covered on TV and other media outlets. In contrast, limit tends to be a grind because there is a cap on the betting. Many players find limit downright boring for that reason alone, and frustrating too. Others (like me ) prefer limit, especially live, because over time one can build a really nice bankroll without the risks inherent in NL.

If you want to play NL, my advice would be to read all you can about it and then test the waters in some micro games and see how you do and move up as you master each level. Same goes for limit--if you can crush your current level, move on up, to a higher level limit game.

Good luck!

Well said lark. Limit and NL are way different games. The using limit as a stepping stone is a farce imo.

I agree with Lark as well. It's a matter of comfort. I've played both quite a bit, but I always seem to be much more comfortable at a limit table then a NL one. It's just more my style.

However, they are both different games for sure. I'd say, wherever you feel 'at home' you will do the best at. If limit bores you (as has been said, many people feel), try NL. But if NL makes you feel nervous/unsure, just stay with limit. There are bad players in both arenas for sure, but it's been said by many that in today's game, NL is a bit more fishy. Doesn't matter though if you are not comfortable at a table....you will always have a losing edge if that's the case. Just go where it feels best to you.

If you're planning to eventually migrate to NL full time then absolutely you're wasting your time playing limit. Learn the game you're going to be playing long term.

Wow! It's very surprising to see this negative opinion of the relation between LHE/NLHE here at Cardchat.

Most poker experts say that Limit Hold'em is the PERFECT PLACE TO START OUT since LHE gives the chance to focus more on basic calculations AND the fact that mistakes in LHE cost much less than in NLHE. Figuring pot odds, break-even odds, etc., is so much easier in LHE and are considered basic & automatic in NLHE. Get good at your basic calculations in Limit and that's one less thing to work on in No Limit.

I played Limit Hold'em for my 1st year in poker until I could comfortably perform the instant calculations needed to be a good NLHE player. Most people don't need to take that long, but it sure helped in my case. Also, I have found that live casino Limit Hold'em games in my area are juicy enough to be worthwhile. So I keep my LHE skills from getting rusty by playing it online on occasion.

Sorry, but I've really got to disagree.

Pretty much all of the calculations in LHE are basic. Working out whether you've got the right odds to draw to a straight or flush is easy because the answer more often than not is simply "yes". Implied odds play a much smaller role because there's pretty much zero chance you're going to stack someone for any significant amount if you hit big.

NLHE involves actual math and implied odds actually count for something.

I'm not for a second saying that LHE is a basic or easy game - quite the contrary. I think it's a hell of a lot harder than NLHE, I know I suck at it and I avoid it for the most part. But unless we're talking about the most basic of basic learning exercises like "do I have a straight and what beats what?" I really don't think there's any reason for someone who wants to learn to play NLHE to start with LHE. Learn limit because you want to play limit, not because you think somehow it'll make you a better no-limit player.

I think there's a big difference between limit and NL hold em, but if your a profitable player at limit Hold em then play it. I just can't stand limit cash table games, but i'll play limit tourney's. I love NL hold em even thou I always end up going broke, things you can do on hold em you just can't do on limit and that really bothers me . Well Best of luck and hopefully all goes well

Yeah, using limit as a stepping stone for NL is questionable. You should just o to the game you want to play.

I think there's plenty of action at limit. What site are you on? On Bodog, I know the pot sizes are much higher for limit at least at my stakes following the 20 buy in rule for no limit and the 300 big bet rule for limit. There's not much action in limit at full tilt, but you can still find some games occasionally.

IMO a lot of players really know how to play NLHE. If there's even 1 fish at my 6 max table in NLHE that's a good catch. The players at 50NL on FT tend to be pretty competitive. I think it depends on the site, but when I want limit I go to Bodog which has some pretty big pots.

I've lately been attracted to LHE coming from a NLHE background since its a math game. I know as long as I know the odds and the other players aren't (many don't at low limits) I've got a real edge.

I think you are making my point. Yes, the very basic math relating to odds is the same in both. And yes, NLHE adds implied odds, etc.

But trust me, that basic part is NOT automatic to many, many beginners until they practice applying those basics to their game. I know of a few current and past CCer's who still ignore pot odds/B.E. odds and just go with "their gut" because they never took the time to drill basic odds into their heads.

Sure, if someone has the basics down pat and wants to become a NLHE player, by all means, they should start playing NLHE and get in the groove.

But my point is that a beginner can use Limit Hold'em as a less-risky training ground until the basic stuff becomes automatic. THEN switch to NLHE and tackle implied odds, etc. For quite a few folks, taking it all in at once is just too much to learn properly IMO.

Anyone who says that there are not enough similarities between LHE and NLHE clearly hasn't spent much time playing Limit. Learn Limit and you are halfway to learning No-Limit. For every hand of NLHE I play today, I still use a little something I learned from starting at LHE.

^^ This is just about exactly what my reasoning was to start with limit. In fact, I was going to use this "1 yr playing FL" time frame. I knew that I had leaks in my game and had to work on the fundamentals, plus I had to get better at instantly calculating the math. Even though, FL have simpler calculations, I do think its a great place to learn to do them quickly, just as MrSticker explained. My original goal was to spend this time learning the fundamentals, eliminating leaks, and learning do math quickly (well at least poker math). I also figured that if I made a mistake in FL, it would cost me a few big bets, whereas in NL, its gonna cost me a buy-in. This has reinforced my original thinking. I do agree though that if I eventually decide to go to NL, that I'm going to have to learn some new skill sets to succeed, but I think I need to spend time perfecting the basics first.

Also, if someone wouldn't mind answering this question....when someone talks about "crushing" a game, what kind of win rate does this equate to? 4BB/100, 10BB? I've often heard it mentioned but never defined. Understand its partly subjective, just curious if there's a range or a range for what can be considered "solid" play. Having a better sense on that would help as I progress up the levels. I assume NL and FL have different standards for what is considered a solid win rate?

Without a doubt NLHE and LHE are different animals, BUT you certainly can start out playing limit and increase your NL abilities. If it were me and I wanted to become a solid ABC poker player I'd start at the limit tables and then once profitable start expanding to a comparable NL game.

From what I have seen on most Internet boards over the years (been playing Hold'em since late-90's) the new players all like NL and dismiss LHE due to their lack of understanding of the game and variance and what not.

I remember going into card rooms and NL games weren't even available, strictly limit and NL was reserved for tourneys (dating myself here). But times have changed and so has the game.

Start out on Full Tilt or Poker Stars playing the micro limit tables and beat them (yes they are very beatable with rake and everything, blah, blah, blah). If you can't, you will never beat the higher limits so don't jump until you can afford to, but work your way up as quickly as possible. Use 350 BB (big bets) as your bankroll for jumping to next level on a full ring table. 6 max is yet another beast and is SUPER AGGRO (but very beatable as well, blah, blah, blah). 500 BB should be your BR for 6max limit and once out of micros you I would use 750 or higher due to the level of variance escalation.

Get your game going and winning while gaining confidence then expand to your starting NL stake. I'd say you should be able to be beating .05-.10 LHE on like Poker Stars within your first 5K hands if you're good, solid ABC poker player at like 3-5BB/100 within your first 5K hands two-tabling (of course this is just a goal and higher rates are possible with more tables and what not).

Add .01-.02 NL ($2NL) once your confident and comfortable and start learning the two games side by side (but play them separately of course). The reason I say this is because in order to max your winnings in poker you will WANT to know how to play both games. I can't count the number of times I've seen the limit side so much more juicier than the rock garden NL side in a casino and the ability to be an all around card player will serve you more profits in the long run. Plus there will be times (if you play live) that seat availability will be an issue and knowing many games increases your earn rates.

6 max can be beat on the micro levels at much higher/profitable rates (like 10+ within first 5K hands) but the level of variance is so much higher and if you don't know the importance of things like position and how starting hand ranges change and expand short handed - you will perish.

Hope this helps. Personally, I like to play cards and play many different forms of poker, but Hold'em is the most profitable and learning all forms of it will give you the most profits overall. I still can't understand why players argue the merits of one over the other when they are all different, facets are compatible, and all are beatable.

Just my .02 from my experiences, good luck

I would suggest playing all games and limits. There are aspects of limit that can hurt your nl game and aspects that can help and vise versa. Knowledge is power and the more games you play the more knowledge you attain.

You can definitely make a decent amount of money at limit.

That's 95%+ of what I play.

Erm... you're missing my point. I'm saying the math in LHE is pretty much always basic, but the same isn't true for NLHE and there's not much that LHE can teach us about those spots.

Take a typical situation at HU $200NL:

Hero ($200, button): Ac Qc
Villain ($200): X X

Hero posts $1, Villain posts $2, Hero raises to $6, Villain raises to $16, Hero calls

Flop: Kc 7c 8s (pot: $32)
Villain bets $27, Hero... ?

How exactly does LHE teach us anything about the math of this situation? In LHE it's a $2 bet into a $12 pot and the call is a no-brainer. If someone is at risk of "going with their gut" and ignoring pot odds in NL, how exactly will playing LHE teach them to do otherwise? If anything, it'll teach them that you may as well go with your gut because you've pretty much always got the odds.

If people like LHE and that's what they want to play, great. I believe it's a deceptively hard game and you've absolutely got to work on it to get good at it. I even envy good LHE players* - they've got a skill that I don't have.

I just don't accept that the skills you need to develop to be a good LHE player (over and above the basic ones like patience and discipline, which you can learn playing any poker game) will make much of a difference when that player moves across to NLHE. They will, on the other hand, have to learn more difficult pot odds calculations, learn about implied odds, pay more attention to position and work a hell of a lot harder on hand and player reading.

Which is why I say you may as well just start in the game you mean to continue playing long-term.

* because at least they only caught LHE. I caught Razz.

The swings in NL are not milder...every NLHE player will tell you a thousand tales of a session where they are getting good cards, making good reads, pulling off the occasional big bluff, and then they get stacked on a hand where they flop the nuts and 3 people shove on draws, or they lose the KK vs. AA hand or set over set against the other big stack.

Absolutely that stands to reason.

There's a flipside though. In NLHE you can make a series of small mistakes and then catch aces or flop a set and suddenly you're back to even or maybe even ahead. Make a series of small mistakes in LHE, however, and it'll take a lot more than one lucky hand to work your way back into the black.

The swings in NLHE are obviously bigger. But a swing is just a swing - it's neither inherently good nor bad and they can work for us just as well as they can work against us.

Don't like the BEST limit players make 2bb/100? Good holdem players make 5+bb/100. I think that answers the money question. Up to you though. Just play the one you enjoy the most.

I am generally a pretty tight/patient player but I don't have the patience for limit. If you are good at it and are making money, keep at it, it's the ultimate grind but I do think you run into a lot of terrible players even at fairly high limits.

But if you want to expand your poker repertoire...play big tournaments, play live games, etc., then you should start playing the micro NL games. I recommend dabbling a bit (within BR considerations) in all forms of poker, as they take different skills and will teach you a lot about the game.

limit was good for a while for me to understand basic poker. It helped me get through 50-60k hands of volume which definitely helped my base knowledge. Once you feel comfortable, the move to NL should definitely happen at some point soon.

I used to love limit. But now I just cant handle the calling stations who call trey raises on every street with nothing but back door str8s and hit three str8 cards for their str8 when you start with trips. May call it playing bad but the idiots who play the worst to me usually get rewarded the most in limit.

LOL. There's your problem. Not only did you pick non-beginner stakes, but you picked one of the most complex types of NLHE there is. I'm talking BEGINNERS, meaning less than 6 months experience. Maybe less than a year. How many beginners play HU $200NL??
You asked, so I'll tell you.

For a beginner in either NLHE of LHE, just figuring outs and pot odds is something that needs to become automatic.
-In this case, a beginner needs to know how many outs:

Nut FD and 1 overcard: 9 + 3 = 12

-Then they must figure (or just remember) break-even odds:

Odds of hitting 12 outs on the next card: About 3-1 (2.8-1 to be exact)

-Then they must figure their pot odds:

Pot 32 + bet 27 = 59 total. 27 to go divided into 59 pot = 2.18-1
(size of the bet and pot doesn't matter since the calc formula is the same for both types of HE)

-Then they must compare the pot odds to their break-even odds and determine if it is worth a call:

2.18-1 is smaller than 3-1, so odds aren't there.

-
-
Yes, THEN things go different in each type. In NLHE, you want to know what your BE odds would be with 2 cards to come since you could shove. Plus you want to consider his stack and read, etc., is figuring implied odds.

Yes, in LHE things are simpler, but not basic. There are some decisions you need to make regarding building a pot or checking, who is likely to chase, who may check-raise, etc.

But trust me. The 4 above basic steps I described may seem trifling to you and me, but many, many beginners play without working on those basics. I know of some well-respected Cardschat members (who shall remain nameless) who STILL don't pay much attention to these basics.

All I'm saying is it's cheaper in LHE to work on the basics since mistakes cost less. Hope that clears things up, OZ. I'm talking strictly beginners and I got the impression (maybe wrongly) that the OP fell into that category. If the player is not a beginner and has all this basic stuff down pat already, then I agree with you OZ. LHE doesn't help a NLHE player much.

Cheers.

Your numbers are misleading in trying to compare nl to fl. As you stated in nl you have to figure out your odds with two cards to come as well as implied odds, if you are on the flop. In fl, you will NEVER see a bet of 27 into a pot of 32, so your numbers only half match each type of he.

What part of "size doesn't matter" don't you understand? It's the same formula no matter the amounts. The universal formula is REQUIRED BET/TOTAL POT= POT ODDS.

But in fl, the amounts you gave are IMPOSSIBLE, and in no limit you have to take into consideration implied odds. Yes players need to know how to figure the numbers, but the specific numbers you gave as an example will only work, in terms of folding based on the math alone, for the long run in nl or pl he against a solid experienced opponent after the turn who puts you on the nut flush draw. Against any player you believe will call a value bet if you hit, folding would be the incorrect play. That is why I said your specific numbers are misleading.

I only picked HU $200NL because it made the numbers easy and it was a math point I was trying to make - by all means assume that I mean $2NL FR and adjust the numbers, positions and other irrelevant details to suit if you think it makes a difference.

And while I don't dispute that you can go through all that math when you're playing LHE, my question is how many people (especially beginners) actually do it for every hand?

The fact is that the math in LHE is almost always simple and most players will quickly learn shortcuts along the lines of "if there's at least X bets in the pot then it's OK to call one more on a flush draw" rather than actually doing the math.

You run into a lot less marginal or difficult to calculate spots (like the one I fabricated above) and even if you do manage to come across a marginal spot in LHE you're only risking one bet so you're not really being punished for your mistakes. Absolutely mistakes cost less in LHE but if you're not being punished for your mistakes, how are you going to learn?

This has been a great debate for me to read on this thread. I don't like considering myself a beginner because I've played poker for 5+ years, so I do have a generally good understanding of the game, but what I lacked was a deep understanding of the basic fundamentals that lead to winning poker. I either did not know them or just ignored applying them. This led to very mixed results. After a couple years off, I came back recently with a renewed committment to learning and applying those fundamentals and slowly moving up the levels. So I am self aware enough to know to treat my process as a beginner to instill those fundamentals.

I began at .10/.20 fl and have moved up to .25/.50. Been mistakes and poor judgements along the way, but I think that's to be expected. Been sticking to BRM except for about a month where I went nuts on some NL. (luckily no real harm done to BR). After that came back to the FL where I've grinding away trying to improve.

I do think FL is helping me in terms of hand selection and calculating odds and keeping my mistakes cheaper, but it's hard to argue that NL will provide even greater complexities to advance mylearning. Seems that if NL is really where I want to end up, then progressing there sooner rather than later would be the way to go to put me in more complex situations to learn.

It can just be how you view it. In nl, if you lose one hand by calling a pot size bet on the turn with only a fd, then you can lose one big pot and possibly learn from that right away. However in the long run, you can be punished more harshly in fl ifyou do not learn from your mistake(s). Those "little" mistakes in fl over time can really add up if you do not learn from them. Eventually those little mistakes will drain a br.

OK Oz. I guess you & I half agree and half disagree about all this. I guess different people can learn in different ways and there isn't just one pat answer for the OP.

No hard feelings. Cheers.

agreed 100%!!
Seems odd that so many poker pros would also agree (both live & online pros).

Personally I like to play limit ring games and no limit tournaments.
It took me along time to adjust but think I have worked on it quite well keeping it that way.
For me I found that playing anything less than 3/6 or 4/8 limit was a losing battle due to rake and pot sizes.
Generally I like to play 6/12 games of limit to beat the rake and due to the ammount of pot sizes.
IMO they are 2 completly different games,but the same at the same time.
You can certanly make the transition in the two but never forget they are two different games.

I played LHE for many many years.... I lived in Fresno CA and they did not allow NL action, it is a great game to learn from and the swings are so small when compared to NL that it allows you to slowly increase your bank roll without too much threat of going broke in just a few sessions, you also get to play many more hands in LHE vs NLHE but that’s also its down fall..... if it's two bets to you in LHE and you are sitting with a hand like 5H6H it's an easy call and you can hit a big flop but in NL if it comes two bets to you (I.E. bet - raise) its an easy fold.... and this is the same thing your fellow players are facing..

Consider the following:

NLHE gives you the opportunity to get people off their drawing hands and apply the pressure…

NLHE requires a lot more bankroll management because of the huge swings

NLHE allows a lot more traps to be set and huge pots to be won (or loss)

NLHE is much less likely to have a showdown (you can win the pot by pure aggression and showdowns are rare when compared to LHE)

LHE gives you the opportunity to chase with great pot odds

LHE has much smaller swings

LHE most of the time their WILL be a showdown so the best hand on the river is going to win much more frequently

So all and all my advice would be… evaluate your play and figure out what kind of player, then devote every once of energy to be the best LHE or NLE player you can be!!!

There are plenty of reasons why playing LHE when you start out is better than starting directly with NLHE, even if you do plan to play no-limit eventually. Whether or not they're sufficient to make up lost time is debatable, but if you know you're in it for the long haul, learning the basics - i.e. pot odds, something that the majority of no-limit players seem to have difficulties with ("how often do you need to have the best hand to call a halfpot river bet?") - is not a bad idea. You'll pick up some bad habits that will take awhile to shake once/if you make the switch, but I came through alright in the end. Of course, there are other ways of learning these things than by spending a year playing a game you're not interested in.

Yeah, there are a lot of pros who advocate starting out with LHE. Obviously, these are pros who DID start with limit hold'em. Whether or not that makes them right is debatable. It's all debatable. Personally, I'd lean towards "play the game you like to play." Going through the motions of LHE as some sort of stepping-stone school while longingly eyeing the wonderful world of NLHE is no way to spend your free time.

One final thing: Swings are only steeper and more difficult to handle in NLHE if you count strictly big blinds. To say that a LHE player "only" loses a few big bets when he hits a bad hand is missing an important point: Most LHE players play with bankrolls of less than 1,000 big bets (or 2,000 big blinds, if you prefer), and the majority of small stakes LHE players probably with more like 300-500 big bets. If you look at how badly a downswing will butcher your bankroll, LHE can quite possibly be said to be worse and that's because the edge of a great player is not that huge. Downswing sizes are affected mainly by your win-rate, and the lower the win-rate, the bigger the swings. And even an expert LHE player is not going to achieve the kinds of win-rates that an expert NLHE player will.

Oh, I forgot:

LHE is an easier game than NLHE. That's what makes it harder to beat, and thus requires more skill. Mmmm, irony.

I tried limit there for a while. Got really frustrated and didn't like it in the end. The NL game is superior in my view and not an easy transition. Just my two cent.