S
Styrofoam
Visionary
Silver Level
srt27300
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Of course, the best way to win quickly if NL Holdem, but it is also a quick way to lose quickly also 
When I'm a little bit tired, I only play limit holdem (cash games) ... Else, I try to switch from NL to Limit, etc. so that the game is more diversified...
When I'm a little bit tired, I only play limit holdem (cash games) ... Else, I try to switch from NL to Limit, etc. so that the game is more diversified...
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Limit demands you make perfect decisions almost all the time to make a profit. Granted, there's less risk of losing big on any one hand, but you don't win as big in any one hand either. So one perfect hand can't make up for several poorly played ones.
No limit, on the other hand, is a lot more forgiving. You can make small mistakes then catch one good hand, double up and finish ahead.
Which is why I play NL. I'll play limit stud games, but they're a very different beast.
No limit, on the other hand, is a lot more forgiving. You can make small mistakes then catch one good hand, double up and finish ahead.
Which is why I play NL. I'll play limit stud games, but they're a very different beast.
M
murph13
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Stud games, in my mind, have to be limit, because at least for me too much can happen. Say in razz, i've gotten, as stated in the razzment thread, A234 to start and finished off with KQJ, in stud hi/lo, i've gotten AA23JQ9, and won nothing, when i could have went all in on the start. If it were nolimit, as i've seen some stud games, then people will go in on 4th street without even a good starting hand and force you to try your luck to hit a straight, flush, or boat. I just find that aspect of it too risky for stud games. And you're right about limit, but that's what makes it, in my mind, harder than no limit, because you can start with a great hand like AA, and end up screwed over, so you gotta kno when to let it go. Therefore, i think that limit is better for people who just started playing poker because it will hopefully teach them dicipline and teach them when to let go of good starting hands.
M
murph13
Enthusiast
Silver Level
good point, but what you're comfortable in isn't always what's best for you. there's this kid i know who always plays no limit cash games with us, and he's most comfortable there, but always ends up walking away empty handed or borrowing money from about 3 people...and then walking away empty handed. He's a beginner, which is why i believe that limit games are better for people just starting out.
PokerVic
Visionary
Silver Level
I was always one of the people who advocated limit to starting players, at least for a short time, just to get an idea of the "luck of the draw" so to speak. So much of NLHE is focused on preflop action, I think it can take a newcomer a long time to become comfortable taking a hand to the river. But, I hadn't really played Limit poker since I started, so I was beginning to feel like a hypocrite.
Fast-forward to now, and I'm playing Limit HORSE almost exclusively, and loving it. Yes, it's a different beast entirely from NLHE, and it took me several weeks (months?) of break-even before I started to turn a profit. But there's a great satisfaction from outplaying someone in Limit poker; whether it be getting that one extra bet out of them, or even that rare occasion when pulling off a stone-cold bluff. And the sheer variety of the HORSE game adds a lot of complexity.
Although I admit that I don't expect Limit HORSE to be as profitable as NLHE, it never feels like a "grind." Of course, I tend to get distracted easily, so this time next month I might be playing Badugi exclusively.
Fast-forward to now, and I'm playing Limit HORSE almost exclusively, and loving it. Yes, it's a different beast entirely from NLHE, and it took me several weeks (months?) of break-even before I started to turn a profit. But there's a great satisfaction from outplaying someone in Limit poker; whether it be getting that one extra bet out of them, or even that rare occasion when pulling off a stone-cold bluff. And the sheer variety of the HORSE game adds a lot of complexity.
Although I admit that I don't expect Limit HORSE to be as profitable as NLHE, it never feels like a "grind." Of course, I tend to get distracted easily, so this time next month I might be playing Badugi exclusively.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
I think you might've missed the major point of my post (and others) above.
Absolutely, you don't go broke anywhere near as fast in limit as you do in no limit. But buy it's nature, it's a game that demands perfect decisions to be able to profit. If you're a beginner you won't be making perfect decisions, and while it may happen slower you're almost certain to end up broke. The small wins you'll make by playing a couple of good hands won't even begin to halt the downslide.
No limit, on the other hand, is much more forgiving. You can make small mistakes and still win your money back with one or two good hands.
Beginners, by their nature, make a lot of mistakes. So the "best" game for them is in theory going to be the one that at least gives them a chance to make up for their mistakes by getting at least one hand right.
I'd only recommend starting with limit if for some reason you know for sure that limit is always going to be your main game.
Sysvr4
Rock Star
Silver Level
A few years ago, it was very easy to make money playing LHE. Things tightened up considerably since then, in my experience, and a number of people have switched to NLHE.
I think it's easier to multi-table LE personally, so you winrate may be higher even with more tables than you would play if you were sitting at NHLE. YMMV of course.
I think it's easier to multi-table LE personally, so you winrate may be higher even with more tables than you would play if you were sitting at NHLE. YMMV of course.
M
murph13
Enthusiast
Silver Level
to ozexorcist: i see where you're coming from and yes, nl is more forgiving, but when you make enough mistakes in nl, you're going to end up far into the hole, and even perhaps in debt to other people, which is always a bad thing. I believe, in my own opinion, that limit is better for a newcommer. Even though you need to make perfect decisions a vast majority of the time to turn a profit, that shouldn't be the beginning poker players goal. If you go into nl immediately, it will only amplify those mistakes, instead of allowing the player more time to see what his mistakes were, instead of being out of the game completely.
another thing that i forgot to mention about limit, and it kind of has to do with bluffing. The aspect of speed hasn't been mentioned in these posts before, and i think that speed is another major part of nl and limit play. If you raise somebody and they immediately call or re-raise, then you could think that they have a strong hand. On the flip side, if you take a long time to make a call, it can tell other players something about your hand. I just thought that speed should be another topic of discussion....anyone else agree?
another thing that i forgot to mention about limit, and it kind of has to do with bluffing. The aspect of speed hasn't been mentioned in these posts before, and i think that speed is another major part of nl and limit play. If you raise somebody and they immediately call or re-raise, then you could think that they have a strong hand. On the flip side, if you take a long time to make a call, it can tell other players something about your hand. I just thought that speed should be another topic of discussion....anyone else agree?
hipshot55
Rock Star
Platinum Level
Prefer Limit, although I play both. Limit and No Limit are practically two different games. People say limit is boring. Well, like any limit game, it does require patience. BUT, by playing tight, aggressive and patient, you can usually win out in the long run. PLUS, like any limit game, you have some control over the lunatics because they CAN'T go all-in and drag you with them. The check raise practically becomes an art form. As someone else mentioned, if they keep playing 10% hands, statistically they will lose 9 out of 10 hands and will soon go away.
Now, the bad part of online play, in my experience is that there seem to be a lot less complete morons on the Limit tables than there are on the No Limit tables.
FWIW, the section on No Limit in Super System II (written by Jennifer Harmon) is an excellent treatment of the game of Limit Holdem.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Theblueduce
Rock Star
Silver Level
nevadanick
Back to work ... zzzzz
Silver Level
Depends a lot on what game you are playing. At higher stakes, PL can be good. At freerolls, low buy-in MTT's and even micro stakes ring games, PL can be worse than NL.
PL Omaha H/L has to be the worst. Raises and re-raises all around until half the table is pot committed and it goes to a multi-way all-in pf. PL ring is the only game I would say the players take seriously. PL Badugi has to be second worst. Players that do not understand the game are only interested in how good their luck is on the draws.