Originally Posted by Scourrge
Hehe... Not pissed, I promise, but I do have a few points to make about what you said, Rudy.
This is throwing a lot of assumptions about what "understanding" means... Are you talking specifically about math and/or analyzing play based on bet size?
Ehhh... "Simple aggression." Again a bit of a weird phrase to use and I'm not sure what you mean. Most players who bet for no reason are not successful at NL. Aggression must be calculated and balanced. And this again gets back to my earlier point about aspects of the game. Are you talking about sins with regards to math? Over-valuing hand value? I'm getting to a point here, I promise.
No. I'm sorry, but no. If you are referring to fit-or-fold SS strategy, then yes, players who know very little about the game can look up charts on when to shove which cards from which position under which circumstances and win a bit of money. This is not the same as successful. SS strategy exploits the fact that many players at NL are not that strong mathematically, but they are still not going to be getting very impressive WRs imo. And of course it won't happen at limit - you're too limited in bet sizing. I'd like to say clearly: Blind aggression in NL is just as disastrous as it is in limit (if not more so).
Okay. Finally to my point: Limit and No Limit hold'em are NOT THE SAME GAME. You simply cannot compare them by saying that one requires a better understanding to do well. Some math/technical ability can take more of a back seat in no limit because there is a greater freedom to flex your stack size (introducing new math to worry about, interestingly). But this is a dimension that doesn't exist in limit. I would contend that knowing when to fold the 2nd best hand is not as important in limit as no limit, because you usually won't lose your stack if you are wrong.
I apologize for the length of this post, but didn't see a good way to cut it down to size. I feel like you're comparing baseball and basketball. Does one require greater athleticism than the other? Who needs a better understanding of the finer points of the game to do well? To me it makes no sense. (Sorry if this is literally just me. )
I agree on your analysis of why limit seems to be fading away. It's too bad really - I have a great respect for the game, and those who can do well at it (I'm not one of those people). But people who produce for TV are looking for one thing: drama. There's a lot more drama in NL than limit, simply because the more easily quantified skills are less present, and the bigger swings are more so.
TL;DR: Limit and no limit are different games and cannot be compared.
Limit does require better preflop (and other) technical skills, whereas no limit requires better bluffing (and other) skills. I would say the best defining characteristic of both would be the ability to think logically about another person's actions, and drawing conclusions from incomplete information.
Actually, we're not all that far apart in our thinking. First off, yes, obviously different games/ different strategy/ different tactics. I DO dispute, however, that short-stackers cannot be successful while having a very limited understanding of the game. We've even had a few on here from time-to-time who were making considerable money and doing things like trying to make SNE on PS with a reasonable chance of actually making it. So some short-stackers can be, and are successful, while simply gutting much of the strategy from NL. Poker sites
have realized this themselves and have, over time, increased the minimum buy-in amounts in many cases to try to remedy this situation.
My bit about "understanding".... Yes I was referencing, specifically, math skills. I simply feel they are required more in any limited-betting type game, than they are in big bet poker. This difference, of course, is lessened as the stacks get deeper and deeper in NL.
You reference, yourself, that SS can be successful, to a degree, because they "exploit the fact that many players at NL are not that strong mathematically". I agree. This was the crux of my arguement (at least that was my intent). It is possible to be a good, successful NL player and not be all that strong mathematically. Trying to achieve that at a limit game is suicide.
Not to totally slag on NL. I actually enjoy the game. I simply feel it takes a different set of skills, and I, perhaps, incorrectly lumped limit and Nl together, under the banner "the game". Very roughly, and imo only, I think limit poker requires a better understanding of the game AS IT RELATES TO MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLES. Further, I think, NL requires a different skill set entirely eg. bluffing, reading the other players (not talking about hands here, but psychology, etc).
So, yes, different games; different skill-sets. When I said that I felt limit required a better understanding of the game; I was thinking purely in terms of mathematical awareness of the situation during game-play. As far as nl, I would say that I think it takes a greater amount of skill in a broad range of non-math related abilities, intangibles, if you will.