| Posted by: Pinos at January 9, 2007, 11:53 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | Mikke_ wrote: Verdi wrote: Mikke_ wrote:
And don't forget, lots of Limit players do very well in NL SnGs/Tourneys.
Because NL SnG/Tourneys are Limited buy-ins. When you are in, you are in.
That doesn't make any sense at all...
What I meant was FL and NL ring games need a different mentality to play them - in FL you are risking a much greater range of $s per hand than at FL. NL ring players can risk their full stack at any time, and need to be able to handle that mentaly to be successful.
However, when you play a NL SnG or tournament, you decide how much you are prepared to risk as a buy-in, and then when you are in, you are in to win a place with the limited chips you now have. I for one am much happier playing NL in this format than in ring games, because there isn't the same element of fear of losing x$s at any time. My $ commitment has been made, and now I am just trying to win or place in this game.
Hope t... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: cefis21 at September 4, 2006, 6:38 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | knalpot wrote: While limit is an easier game decisionwise, i find limit harder to play winning limit than winning no limit.
In no limit you control the potsize, the odds you are laying. In limit you cannot, or to a far lesser extent. If you handle the pot correctly and make others make mistakes by calling you, you can win easily in low limit NL. In limit, it's often (mathematically) correct for multiple players to draw out, calling your raises is often correct on turn and river (although they made the mistake preflop).
You'll need other tricks, starting hand selection, position and hand protection and position are key.
Limit is like wrestling with no arms; it's difficult, but if you use other tricks you can still win.
Knalpot nailed it right on the head and has perfectly described the difference between NL and Limit. To each his own, I prefer NL/PL. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: knalpot at September 4, 2006, 7:59 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | While limit is an easier game decisionwise, i find limit harder to play winning limit than winning no limit.
In no limit you control the potsize, the odds you are laying. In limit you cannot, or to a far lesser extent. If you handle the pot correctly and make others make mistakes by calling you, you can win easily in low limit NL. In limit, it's often (mathematically) correct for multiple players to draw out, calling your raises is often correct on turn and river (although they made the mistake preflop).
You'll need other tricks, starting hand selection, position and hand protection and position are key.
Limit is like wrestling with no arms; it's difficult, but if you use other tricks you can still win. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Mikke_ at September 3, 2006, 10:36 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | Verdi wrote: Mikke_ wrote:
And don't forget, lots of Limit players do very well in NL SnGs/Tourneys.
Because NL SnG/Tourneys are Limited buy-ins. When you are in, you are in.
That doesn't make any sense at all...
What I meant was FL and NL ring games need a different mentality to play them - in FL you are risking a much greater range of $s per hand than at FL. NL ring players can risk their full stack at any time, and need to be able to handle that mentaly to be successful.
However, when you play a NL SnG or tournament, you decide how much you are prepared to risk as a buy-in, and then when you are in, you are in to win a place with the limited chips you now have. I for one am much happier playing NL in this format than in ring games, because there isn't the same element of fear of losing x$s at any time. My $ commitment has been made, and now I am just trying to win or place in this game.
Hope that makes a little mor... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: phillc at September 3, 2006, 10:04 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | heret1k wrote: also in NL you can play totally LAG then when you pick up a hand and make ridiculous overbets you'll get called by middle pair.
i agree with this totaly, cant be playing too loose in FL | | Static Link |
| Posted by: heret1k at September 3, 2006, 9:13 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | | also in NL you can play totally LAG then when you pick up a hand and make ridiculous overbets you'll get called by middle pair. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: bryan2137 at September 3, 2006, 7:44 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | mike_m235 wrote: bryan2137 wrote: mike_m235 wrote:
I've played a little more than 30 hours at each. I don't agree at all. I think the players are equal. I just think that poor limit players lose slower than poor NL players. They still lose, it just takes more hands due to the structure of the game. Calling poor odds is calling poor odds. They just pay for it more in NL.
I completely disagree with this. The opportunity for a poor no limit player to lose money happens far less often then the opportunity for a poor limit player to lose money, a poor NL player might make 2 or 3 bad decisions an hour, a poor limit player can make the same bad decisions 6 or 7 times an hour and they take their mistakes much further than you do in NL
You can disagree if you want. You'll just be wrong. Would you like me to post the hand histories of the weak NL players I've seen lose more than $200 in a hand? It would be a long post. And that's at NL200 or NL400, w... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Verdi at September 3, 2006, 3:49 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | Mikke_ wrote:
And don't forget, lots of Limit players do very well in NL SnGs/Tourneys.
Because NL SnG/Tourneys are Limited buy-ins. When you are in, you are in.
That doesn't make any sense at all...
As for the NL vs FL debate. I think it's much easier to make a profit from NL. Just play a lot and learn the patterns of your opponents. Most poor players act the same way and it's hard to lose money to them in the long run.
In fixed limit it's harder to overcome a bad run of cards so I guess that makes the player edge smaller and thus a less profitable game. Especially at low limits where the rake eats you alive at FL. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Mikke_ at September 2, 2006, 9:51 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | TobiasFunke wrote: Evaluate the following:
No limit is a game that requires greater skill, but the bonus opportunities associated with limit poker are WAY better for the average whore.
My 2c.
Just play whichever gives you the best Net return.
And don't forget, lots of Limit players do very well in NL SnGs/Tourneys.
Because NL SnG/Tourneys are Limited buy-ins. When you are in, you are in.
_________________
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: mike_m235 at September 2, 2006, 9:16 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | bryan2137 wrote: mike_m235 wrote:
I've played a little more than 30 hours at each. I don't agree at all. I think the players are equal. I just think that poor limit players lose slower than poor NL players. They still lose, it just takes more hands due to the structure of the game. Calling poor odds is calling poor odds. They just pay for it more in NL.
I completely disagree with this. The opportunity for a poor no limit player to lose money happens far less often then the opportunity for a poor limit player to lose money, a poor NL player might make 2 or 3 bad decisions an hour, a poor limit player can make the same bad decisions 6 or 7 times an hour and they take their mistakes much further than you do in NL
You can disagree if you want. You'll just be wrong. Would you like me to post the hand histories of the weak NL players I've seen lose more than $200 in a hand? It would be a long post. And that's at NL200 or NL400, where theoretically the pl... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: phillc at September 2, 2006, 9:10 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | i switched to fixed limit when i had about 150$ bankroll (i started with 0$)
after i switched (about 2 months ago), i lost money. infact, i still lose money, but at a very, very low rate.
im still not that great at poker, ive read alpha's posts and read the lee jones book as he recommended, then i read sshe twice, and im about half way through hefap, then ill read top
point being i suck, but i have made a crapload of money and built a healthy bankroll since i went to limit. sure im still not a winning player (but i am striving to become one, i have 7 more books that will be here next week) despite being a losing player, i have made over 1300$ in the two months. it is obviously all from bonus. however, i think that if i had stuck to no limit, i would have busted several times, a long time ago. sucking seems to be amplified in nl, as stated earlier several times. however, my goal while learning has always been to lose less than the bonus is given (100$ match bonus, i lose 80$ and com... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: AJ at September 2, 2006, 5:46 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | sfgator95 wrote: ...since almost every hand is raked at NL25, and even $0.05 rake counts as a raked hand, this is how I sterted to get into NL.
Just for the record, although the rake does start at $0.05, the rake has to be at least a penny per person, to count, so at a 10 person table only tables raked $0.10 or higher count at Party NL25. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: bryan2137 at September 2, 2006, 4:06 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | mike_m235 wrote:
I've played a little more than 30 hours at each. I don't agree at all. I think the players are equal. I just think that poor limit players lose slower than poor NL players. They still lose, it just takes more hands due to the structure of the game. Calling poor odds is calling poor odds. They just pay for it more in NL.
I completely disagree with this. The opportunity for a poor no limit player to lose money happens far less often then the opportunity for a poor limit player to lose money, a poor NL player might make 2 or 3 bad decisions an hour, a poor limit player can make the same bad decisions 6 or 7 times an hour and they take their mistakes much further than you do in NL | | Static Link |
| Posted by: sfgator95 at September 2, 2006, 2:08 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | I think it depends a lot on the site and bonus conditions. NL25 bonuses clear faster on party than .5/1 limit bonuses since almost every hand is raked at NL25, and even $0.05 rake counts as a raked hand, this is how I sterted to get into NL.
From my experience at 0.5/1 through 2/4 limit and 25NL through 100NL the skill levels in the games are pretty much similar for games of comparable pot sizes. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Alphaunit1 at September 2, 2006, 12:29 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | No doubt the highest variance game is shorthanded FL games.
mike_m nailed it on the head. Donkeys are donkeys, regardless of the game or its structure - it's just that a good NL player can punish that donkey for his/her entire stack in a single hand, where the good Limit player has to grind that stack off the donkey. In the end, you're more likely to keep the Limit donkey playing longer, and also more likely to get them to deposit again and again, because they all get those great runs of cards that make them think they can beat the game. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: mike_m235 at September 2, 2006, 8:44 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | shabik wrote: I think most players who has played more then 30 hours at both games agrees that the average NL-player is by far worse then the average FL-player.
It is a LOT easier to win at NL then FL SH for example.
I've played a little more than 30 hours at each. I don't agree at all. I think the players are equal. I just think that poor limit players lose slower than poor NL players. They still lose, it just takes more hands due to the structure of the game. Calling poor odds is calling poor odds. They just pay for it more in NL.
_________________
There are many different religions in this world, but if you look at them carefully, you'll see that they all have one thing in common: They were invented by a giant, superintelligent slug named Dennis. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: shabik at September 2, 2006, 8:38 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | I think most players who has played more then 30 hours at both games agrees that the average NL-player is by far worse then the average FL-player.
It is a LOT easier to win at NL then FL SH for example. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: heret1k at September 2, 2006, 6:29 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | tilted wrote: DrStrange wrote: My variance in limit is just under 13BB/100 hands while my variance in NL is just over 17BB(PT)/100. Thus I see just under 50% more variation in NL than in Limit. While I understand everyone's game is different, I do not accept heret1k's proposition that Limit is riskier than NL for games with equivelent blind structures.
DrStrange
Im pretty sure you are comparing BB(big bets) in limit to BB(big blind) in no-limit.
Thus according to your stats you are experiencing alot more variance in limit than in no-limit.
The truth is that limit has more variance than no-limit.
I also think its alot more fun to play limit because its more constant action compared to no-limit, which i find pretty boring, with the occasional really difficult decision.
This is correct, your real BB/100 in NL would be 8.5 | | Static Link |
| Posted by: lonestar at September 2, 2006, 5:28 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | Two different games that requires different skills to beat. End of story.
_________________
"When I registered at a new poker site, they told me to enter a password.....I then enterd "penis".......but then they told me that it was too short" | | Static Link |
| Posted by: tilted at September 2, 2006, 4:57 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | DrStrange wrote: My variance in limit is just under 13BB/100 hands while my variance in NL is just over 17BB(PT)/100. Thus I see just under 50% more variation in NL than in Limit. While I understand everyone's game is different, I do not accept heret1k's proposition that Limit is riskier than NL for games with equivelent blind structures.
DrStrange
Im pretty sure you are comparing BB(big bets) in limit to BB(big blind) in no-limit.
Thus according to your stats you are experiencing alot more variance in limit than in no-limit.
The truth is that limit has more variance than no-limit.
I also think its alot more fun to play limit because its more constant action compared to no-limit, which i find pretty boring, with the occasional really difficult decision. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: DrStrange at September 2, 2006, 4:01 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | I have a ~100,000 hand data base, about 40% NL and 60% limit. My variance in limit is just under 13BB/100 hands while my variance in NL is just over 17BB(PT)/100. Thus I see just under 50% more variation in NL than in Limit. While I understand everyone's game is different, I do not accept heret1k's proposition that Limit is riskier than NL for games with equivelent blind structures.
Keep in mind that NL25 is roughly comparable to 0.25/0.5 limit. Both games are quite soft, though the chimp is still dead money.
Perhaps heret1k is matching NL25 with 1/2 limit. In that case, the stakes in 1/2 limit are ~4X bigger and yes, the risk is about 3X higher in 1/2 limit than NL25.
DrStrange | | Static Link |
| Posted by: heret1k at September 2, 2006, 3:19 am | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | DrStrange wrote:
In most cases (but not all) you can clear a bonus faster and with less risk playing limit vs no limit.
Limit is faster but it's more risk because it has much more variance. a chimp could beat the NL25 tables. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: phillc at September 1, 2006, 10:47 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | alpha actually made another post i have bookmarked:
http://www.bonuswhores.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22408&highlight= | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Alphaunit1 at September 1, 2006, 6:47 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | I think that it is a pretty broad generalization. Limit can actually be quite a complex game, but there is a structure to it that makes it appear beguiling simple at times. Your "toolbox" of moves is smaller playing Limit than NL, so you have to be more aware of how to use your position and raises/check-raises to your advantage (for example). Obviously, there are quite a few mechanical aspects to the game as well, which does lend itself to easier multi-tabling... especially at the lower limits.
I won't deny that NL is a more complex game, if only due to the need for far more intense opponent profiling. Missteps at NL cost everything you have on the table - rarely will it cost you more than 2-3BBs playing limit if you botch a hand badly calling somebody down. If anything, I would assert that PL is by far the hardest game of all, but that's just me.
I think the skill sets required to play each game are radically different, much like what DrStrange indicated. I find explai... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: DrStrange at September 1, 2006, 4:24 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | No limit and limit are both games of skill, but very different.
No limit is more difficult than limit. Thus, an average whore can play more limit tables at once than no limit tables.
In most cases (but not all) you can clear a bonus faster and with less risk playing limit vs no limit.
So a multi-tabling whore playing limit can clear bonuses MUCH faster and safer than a no limit player.
(Playing many party $25 no limit table, only opening with top 1% hands, is a unique exception to the general rule.)
DrStrange | | Static Link |
| Posted by: TobiasFunke at September 1, 2006, 4:00 pm | | Topic: Limit vs. No Limit Forum: Bonus Whores | Evaluate the following:
No limit is a game that requires greater skill, but the bonus opportunities associated with limit poker are WAY better for the average whore. | | Static Link |
|