cash game:no limit or limit for a beginner?

[Kwolff]

They are two completely different games in my opinion especially when playing at lower limits which i suspect is the case since your just starting out. Limit is much looser in nature which I feel can lead to very bad habits in nl.

I think no limit is the way to go and depending on how much you want to put in money wise would dictate on where to start. 1-table sng's(6 player even) is not a bad place to learn or even small nl's with 10 or 20 buyins.

In my opinion limit , especially at lower levels, can really affect your learning or even frustrate you to a decline in poker skills if your trying to play nl. This can happen at the nl's as well however I find on the net the majority of players in lower nl games play way better poker than in limit, thus improving your own game, than playing lower level limit.

 

[dwolfg]

Simple. Both. Both games have unique aspects that are more important in one or the other, but can still improve the other type by leaps and bounds.

 

[hbkmad]

Out of interest.. of those reconmending limit as a starting point, who actually, really, honestly, swear on ya life, really played limit as an introduction to the game.. and by that I dont mean you plaed limit for a week and then switched, I mean who played limit and learned a significant portion of the game via limit play?

i started play nl poker with actually no real knowledge of bankroll mangement. I didn't really read any books or forums about online poker.
And you know what happen yep i was bleeding money out of my bankroll.
Your question is it about limit holdem, n/l or just the game in general? I usually play limit hold em at the micro levels, and i've learn bankroll mangement, how to take bad beats, and bluffing. People think you can;t bluff at limit but you can. Not as much at no limit but still you can.

As for the orignial poster it just comes down to what your comfortable playing, just seriously get a book read the forums and study.
Good luck and hope it works out well for you

 

[Dwilius]

Another thing to consider is the rake. In Limit you have to go to more showdowns and will win a lower percentage of them than at NL where your big pots should be high % winners.

I like to round my pennies off at the end of the day, so I just sat at .02/.04 table at UB. HU we both start with .40, I finished villain off in 9 hands...I was left with 67c. So, I won in the short term but UB absolutely owned us for 36 bb/100 each .

Haven't paid attn to limit tables, but I hope the rake isn't nearly that bad at lowstakes.

 

[Ursala]

I really don't like limit, seems as though people just keep betting all the way to the river, you can't chase someone out of the pot with a big bet.

Full Tilt has $1.00 + .25 No Limit SNGs. I finally cashed again in a freeroll, and have been using the winnings to play these.

 

[Theblueduce]

I would say limit and freerolls. Limit is more just math where No-limit is math, phycological and timing. If you check out Chris Fergeson's article atFull Tilt Poker he talks about how he went from 0 to 10K in a year. Something for all of us to aspire to.

 

[rhulp1]

limit is very different lot of people limps in because the blinds are low (thats my exp.) i would say do no limit freerolls a lot and if you get better start with a little money!

 

[nevadanick]

Out of interest.. of those reconmending limit as a starting point, who actually, really, honestly, swear on ya life, really played limit as an introduction to the game.. and by that I dont mean you plaed limit for a week and then switched, I mean who played limit and learned a significant portion of the game via limit play?

[x] Hand up !!
I started playing stud and other limit games in '69 when the casino NLHE tables were sitting empty, no interest, no players. I still prefer limit games today, live and online.

One thing you do learn in limit games is that you are making decisions on every street and are playing more starting hands. In NL, quite often there is only one decision to make per hand dealt and you are playing fewer hands.

A lot of people refer to limit games as 'chasing' games. Wrong word, imo. The real word is 'poker' games. You make a 'poker' decision on every street if you're in the hand. In NL (especially online) it comes down to an all-in preflop decision, which (to me) is Clint Eastwood poker - "Do ya feel lucky, punk? Well do ya?" Poker's version of the kids game - "I Double Dog Dare Ya".

Deciding between limit and no limit may also rest with the ability to fund a bankroll. If you have the funds to survive a lot of variance and can reload repeatedly, and you enjoy playing 'instant gratification' poker, then NL is the place for you.

Over the years my winning limit sessions way outnumber losing ones. But then, I'm also quite happy being an ol' time grinder. The top players who do well, higher stakes players, would likely prefer NL, but they are also rolled for more swings.

I started with limit, and after 40 years of it, I'm sticking with it. It works for me.

 

[jazzaxe]

Fixed limit is more conservative and requires more patience. You have to know the odds, play in good position and play good starting cards. You have to beat the other players and also stay ahead of the rake. Your losses will be less per pot, but so will your winnings.

No limit is all about winning big pots. You see hands go for 2 orbits with small pots and then bamm!! two or more players have their whole stack in the middle. A bit more adrenaline. You definitely have to know when you are ahead or behind and what the other guy is thinking. If you never fold your Aces stick to fixed limit. Try to play 6max NL at the lowest stakes available and see how you do. If you can break even or win after a couple of hours, you will know whether NL is your game or not.

 

[vanquish]

no limit, and it's not even close

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Please excuse me if I sound like a jerk. But there is a sh*t ton of bad information in this thread.

1. It was stated above, and later implied that limit holdem has less variance. This is not true. At least not against moderately decent players. Your edges are smaller in Limit, and just because you bet differently doesn't mean you can't get lots of money in. Variance in LHE is actually higher.

2. People keep saying you'll loose less playing limit. This is also silly. You might not lose 100BB in a single hand but you can piss away money much faster than you might imagine. Obviously at EQUAL STAKES (which isn't a fair comparison really) you will both win and lose less at limit, but you'll swing more there too.

3. The idea that Limit is less risky is also silly unless you are a complete lunatic. If you are playing with a huge amount of money at big no limit tables, then sure... you could lose your mortgage in a hand or two. But were not talking about that are we? we are talking about games under 25nl for NL and under 1$ for limit right? You are gonna lose at either game as a new player most likely.

4. As I often see in discussions that pit No Limit vs Limit- folks are raggin' on limit because it is "too loose", "too chasey", "no good because you can't protect your hand" and so on.

This is the worst one of all. Of course Limit hold'em WILL "suck" if you expect it to be No Limit... so will Candyland. On one level they are similar games... in fact almost identical. But the betting structure of limit makes it s COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAME.

In Limit hold'em you are pretty much ONLY worried about pot odds and the technical response to situations.

In No Limit you have to consider both pot odds AND implied odds and the psychological factor is far stronger in the play.

On one level I would say playing, as a beginner, a combination or limit and playmoney no limit would be a good start. And here is why.

The Limit tables will teach you how the game works, and teach you how to draw, and make plays that are mathematically correct. Limit is very technical.

The NL playmoney tables will teach you ALL ABOUT implied odds. You will now have to learn when it is and isn't right to push, or call an all in. This is much of what playmoney poker is about.

Then as you get a handle on these you can add small stakes cash NL and tourneys. And you can focus on betsizing and pot control.

IMO the micro stakes limit games on Stars are the SOFTEST poker games for real money on the internet. If you can't win playing basic ABC poker at them, then you need help. Lots.

All that said.. I personally LIKE No Limit more.

 

[diamondace]

i really agree with what doyle brunson said about this. these are really two different games. personally i dont play limit. its just not my game. limit game is more about hands and no limit is more about willpower reading skills like that.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Me and Richyl2008 talk in MSN about this thread:

3:35:02 AM: I made a gigantic response to the limit vs no limit for beginners thread...
3:35:11 AM: now I feel stupid since no one will read it

3:35:26 AM: lol

3:35:39 AM: its just the opinionated nonsense in the thread was reaching a roar in my ears

3:35:40 AM: tl dr

3:35:52 AM: tl dr?

3:36:01 AM: too long didnt read
3:36:10 AM: duh

3:36:10 AM: byeah
3:36:18 AM: heres one: Limit is less risky.
3:36:21 AM: good lord.
3:36:54 AM: another choice comment: It has less variance,

3:37:10 AM: limit has more variance

3:37:16 AM: i know
3:37:35 AM: and to say it has less risk is naive
3:38:08 AM: my favorite ones are always the sort of arguments that go:
3:38:20 AM: "It sucks cause you can't protect your hand"
3:38:24 AM: or
3:38:38 AM: "People never fold and suckout on the river too much"
3:38:46 AM: might as well say:
3:39:02 AM: "I hate it cause you cant get your pawn to the other side and change it to a queen"

3:39:12 AM: lol

3:39:45 AM: see... thats one reason I like you so much.
3:40:07 AM: you appreciate (read understand) the depth (read depravity) of my humor (read obsession with myself)

3:40:47 AM: whenever you type something i dont feel like reading i just type control v like this
3:40:52 AM: lollollollollollollollollollollollollol
3:40:58 AM: lollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollol

3:41:02 AM: you suck as much as limit hold'em

3:41:07 AM: HA!

 

[phoebepussy]

a well thought out response from cAPSLOCK that makes a lot of good points

cAPSLOCK clearly has real limit play experience rather than just having dipped his toe in when he started

Bricks and mortar experience translates pretty well at limit where the difference between live and on line no limit seems enormous.

I found that limit suited my play better and I could get consistant results despite my average session time being under an hour as I played a lot during work time(I was a corporate tax adviser post my accountancy qualification but pre my legal training very stop start workload)

Find the game that best suits you and you will perform as well as you can some players just dont have the game to avoid losses and dont have the desire to put in the hard work it needs to become a winning player

I only learned to play no limit to participate in cardschat buy in events, there are a handfull of players that I adjust my play for when I play against them recognising that they are stronger than me.

When I play limit I just play my A game no single opponent intimidates me (though obviously there are better players) a solid game where you have a significant edge over the weaker players and only give a slight edge to the better players gives an overall winning outcome to my limit game

 

[phoebepussy]

cAPSLOCK

I was responding to your first post (slow typer)

I did read it

I for one did appreciate it so hopefully you dont think all the effort you put into it was in vain - thank you

I ramble when I write I was trying to get accross that I thought you had put your case well had clearly thought it through and clearly cared enough to create a true quality post

 

[highway26776]

I find i pick up bad habbits in limit. I tend to chase hands a lot more because of the "low risk " ....... then i have to catch myself from doing it when i go back to no limit . I started out playing just freerolls which might not be the same as real money but later in the tournaments it can start to resemble a real money tourney .I then went on to sngs and mtt sngs with low buyins for a start. Good luck whichever way you go

 

[cAPSLOCK]

I for one did appreciate it so hopefully you dont think all the effort you put into it was in vain - thank you

I am grateful, ye of the extra long cat!

 

[Boltpoker]

Learning Limit

Hey, Limit is less risky in the sense that when anyone begins playing they are likely to make mistakes. In limit there is only so much money you can lose on a big mistake. Therefore, the curve is a lot more forgiving. That being said, they are two completely different games. The skills needed for one don't exactly transfer over to the other one. I learned with limit, read a lot of books, palyed no limit, and decided that I actually like to play limit more. I am actually on a limit poker journey at the moment and I write about it at http://boltpoker.blogspot.com .It will end up being a personal preference in the end. After you get your feet wet with limit you can decide what to do. Hope that helped...

 

[motorbreath14]

As many have already noted, Limit and No Limit really to different games. When I started playing online, I started with limit on the assumption that it was "safer". After playing about 25,000 hands of limit at about break-even, I gave No Limit a try one day on a whim and had decent success right from the start. It was simply a better fit for my style of play.

So definitely give both an equal shot (with good bankroll management!) and whichever game you find yourself gravitating to, dive in and learn all you can about it. Good luck!

 

[TurningStar]

I would start with limit... Especially at the low limits. It has less variance, and sure, the idiots there play very very loose, but if you wait for good cards and strong hands, you can make a nice profit at these tables. When you have the nuts, bet the hell out of it, cause they WILL call you down!

ah ha! this so true and so fun playing this way

 

[cAPSLOCK]

I would start with limit... Especially at the low limits. It has less variance, and sure, the idiots there play very very loose, but if you wait for good cards and strong hands, you can make a nice profit at these tables. When you have the nuts, bet the hell out of it, cause they WILL call you down!

ah ha! this so true and so fun playing this way

The part about people calling you to the river especially at low limits is true.

The part about variance is NOT. It is 100% wrong.

Just trying to remain clear.

 

[imasquare]

right now i prefer limit, ill move on to no limit when i get better, i find limit to be profitable especially with my small bankroll,most of the time i play i make a small profit by playing smart and never ever bluffing in limit tables and over time it'll add up.

 

[MaxxxW]

limit or shortstack strategy for beginners.

i personally would prefer shortstack strat because i dont like limits where u cannot pressure draws enough etc.

 

[mzdavis]

I'm not sure which is better for a beginning player. I started with NL, as there are tables on most sites that you can play for a minute amount of money. I knew that limit was not nearly as exciting as NL, and that I had no desire to ever play limit once I got a general gist of the game. People say stuff about worse players at limit tables, but there are plenty of new players at NL tables who are in the beginner boat as well. Sites like bodog actually offer beginner tournaments where they pay out more positions. This is very helpful if you are on a tight budget and worried about losing your bankroll too quickly. It also allows you to get a feeling for tournament style NL play. So if I were you, I'd stick with NL if that is the game you eventually want to play.