Limit or No Limit? why?

G

GLG-man

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 8, 2006
Total posts
128
Chips
0
I'm not sure if this has been brought up before but I would just like to get a general overall opinion from everyone's preference between the two and your reasons for this preference. I have always been a no limit player myself but I have recently been trying out the limit ring games and I a am having a fair amount of success with it at the moment.

Comment's welcome.


G-man
 
D

Dingodaddy23

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Total posts
497
Chips
0
High stakes limit is where it's at IMO. But for small stakes and mid stakes, NL ring is going to be your most profitable game. You won't be able to beat the rake for a healthy amount in any limit game under 5/10 and even that is pushing it. But go play 15/30, you'll be in love after your first great session when you take down 3 grand.
 
spore

spore

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 4, 2006
Total posts
491
Chips
0
Yeah, low stakes limit is pretty much a crap shoot. YES you can be a profitable player over-time but.. it's a lot of work for not a whole lot of success. I really haven't found a limit game online I liked yet. But that may just be because my bankroll online can't support higher-limit games yet.

That being said, I like NLHE at lower stakes.. like the $1/$2 live games. And the micros online are pretty easy to dominate with a tight/aggressive game.

The $15/$30 LHE live games are pretty good too. You gotta have a nice BR, but.. it's a real good game. The $3/$6 LHE live game is.. eh, frustrating. This is where the donks are at for sure. You can win it over the long run, but it's a frustrating ascent to get there ;)

The other thing, from a fundamental level is... are you strong at reading people, putting them on a hand? You've got to do a lot more of that in NLHE than you do in LHE. Basically because if you're heads-up at the river in a Limit game... and you're not sure, it's only gonna cost you 1 bet to find out. In No Limit, it can cost you all your chips ;)

Hope my ranting helps a little maybe?
 
Stick66

Stick66

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Total posts
6,374
Chips
0
To quote Jennifer Harman: "No-Limit is an art. Limit is a science."

In Limit, odds command more attention. It is a more technical game. bluffing is harder. Tightness usually succeeds.

In No-Limit, odds still matter but there are more "moves" or "plays" that can be made. Looseness can succeed at times. The loss or gain from a decision is usually greater.

And then there's Pot-Limit...
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
Chips
0
NL. More donks + less variance = yay!
 
quintass

quintass

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Total posts
339
Chips
0
Limit / Fixed / No Limit......

IMO limit and low limit usually attracts a lot more chasers and maniacs. If you could deal properly with these types of players then there is some money to be made. But generally you'll make more money and have less boneheads in a no limit game, most times. :eek: Quint
 
F

Freeroll

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
May 17, 2006
Total posts
3
Chips
0
NL is much better than limit because you can make an opponent pay the maximum if they are trying to suck out on you. :cool:
 
starfall

starfall

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Total posts
574
Chips
0
Some people find NL better than Limit, some the other way round. If you like the psychology and make well-timed bluffs, then No Limit is the way to go.
However, if your leanings are more towards a mathematical style of play, then Limit is probably better.
Certain flaws can also make one more profitable than another. If you find yourself temped to call the river to keep someone honest, then skip No Limit, as that river bet will tend to be very expensive. If you're determined to see a lot of flops, then limit is definitely not for you (No Limit you could potentially still turn a profit if you play post-flop very well, but in Limit you won't make enough on hands you hit to make up for the loose pre-flop play, generally)... there are lots of other aspects.

I'm tending towards the idea that if you like the format of Limit, and like a mathematical style, then you should play Limit Omaha or Limit Omaha High/Low rather than Holdem - because lots of players seeing flops with bad hands increases the value of good starting hands, rather than decreasing them. For big bet games, Pot Limit Omaha (High/Low) and No Limit Holdem both have their merits.
 
V

vdubber

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Total posts
27
Chips
0
i prefer limit ring games low stakes $1/$2 mostly.. but that is prbably because i have only been playing for a year and dont have a huge bankroll.. but i have tried NL and have found that is a very quick way to lose your stack but i can be profitable if you are able to read people and put them on the spot. limit is harder to bluff but since ive been playing for quite some time i find that to be my area of expertise :)
 
dinosdynasty

dinosdynasty

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 15, 2005
Total posts
151
Chips
0
I prefer Limit because the swings are easier to handle. I started playing NL online but was going crazy watching my meager bankroll go up and down so I prefer to grind it out at Limit. I think this hurts my sitngo games as I play too tight early and have to race at the end. Find what you are good at by keeping honest logs and stick with what earns you the most profit.
 
Tammy

Tammy

Can I help you?
Administrator
Joined
May 18, 2005
Total posts
57,536
Awards
11
US
Chips
1,170
It really depends on my mood. I go through phases of playing both in the cash games (at the lower limits--I don't have the BR for the bigger 15/30, or even 3/6 limit). Lately I've been playing NL cash games though with a little SNG thrown in every so often.

As for playing live, there is usually a waiting list at our casino for the 1/2 NL tables, so I will sit at the 3/6 limit while I wait for a NL seat to open up. I'm usually doing pretty well by the time they call my name, so I end up sticking w/ the limit table and raking in the chips from the donks. Of course, if I find I'm not doing well, I will switch to the NL of course (which can be a huge goldmine).

One thing I usually steer clear of is limit MTTs. :eek: I have grass outside that I could be watching grow. ;)
 
K

killdrphil

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
May 29, 2006
Total posts
1
Chips
0
Anyone can bluff in low stakes limit and very successfully. I do. It just depends on the cards on the board and what card hits next and what their betting patterns in the hand have been. And your position. And how many players you are up against. Most won't fold to a bluff bet on the flop but many actually will fold in low stakes if you time things well and hit them on the turn or the river.
 
blankoblanco

blankoblanco

plays poker on hard mode
Silver Level
Joined
May 16, 2006
Total posts
6,129
Chips
0
I happen to think low stakes limit is a joke. Yes, there are times when you can bluff, but these are when fish have absolutely nothing to chase. If there's anything a fish can possibly chase, you can bet they will call you all the way to the river.

Low stakes limit is simply not good for your sanity if you're a good player. You will get rivered more times than you'll believe. Even if you end up being successful, if you're an above average player, it's mostly a waste of your talent. Play NL/NL SnG's and you'll almost definitely see better results.
 
S

shawley

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 9, 2006
Total posts
15
Chips
0
I prefer limit games, you get a lot less bluffers so if you are a tight player like I am you can usually do pretty good. I have done good at limit tables but I usually lose a lot of money at no limit tables. The only time I like to play no limit is in tournaments.
 
Coryan

Coryan

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 8, 2006
Total posts
207
Chips
0
Today, it's NL....who knows about tomorrow.

Last year I started on the .50/$1 limit tables on Party and did well. I took a three month break during the winter (played no poker) and started up again in March playing NL25 and NL50. My earn rate was much higher at NL, so I have been sticking with it. However, I have been running even for the last three weeks and my earn rate has suffered.

I very much agree with the statement of Limit=science and NL=art. There is definately a bit of both in each game, but the math was much more important in my limit games. Personally, I tend to be more of a technical player, so I am not sure why I seem to do better at NL. But tight (16% flops) and aggressive has worked well for me.

One other comment, I have read some pros who think PL may be the most challenging and complex of all the holdem games...and I agree. I really enjoy PL, but play very little (not sure why). It seems to be a great balance of science and art!
 
B

bully1337

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
May 31, 2006
Total posts
10
Chips
0
In Limit, odds command more attention. It is a more technical game. Bluffing is harder. Tightness usually succeeds.

100 % agree... IT is so difficult to bluff.. that the limit games arent so interessting like no-limit!
 
Top