phdinsports said:
I assume you meant skill is more important in no-limit. A NL game allows you to place bets large enough that drawing hands do not have the proper odds to make certain calls. Obviously bluffing is also more important. Limit hold em is a great game but less skill is required to play it.
peteep said:
True but that is only if your on a draw. NL has less decision making. I mean there are usually one or two betting rounds, that's it before "all in" At least 40% of the players go all in before the flop, making it a crap shoot. Classic hand, pockets, vs over suited connectors, are usually called all in, left to the fate of the cards, and not the players, play. The major difference is in limit hold,the more pots you win, the more money you accumulate, in no limit, you could win more pots than your opponent, demonstrating superior play, but if you lose one all in, you may be eliminated, or way behind! You may have out won your opponent 9 pots to 2, but if those two loses are all in plays, your either out or behind. In a limit game, you out win your opponent 9 to 2 in pots, your guaranteed to be ahead in chips.
phdinsports said:
I assume you are comparing NL that you have seen on the internet or on tv. If you play in a NL game there is no way that "40% of the players go all in before the flop". In terms of decision making, NL is much more complex. Limit hold em is a very mechanical game. Calling a standard bet size is not much of a decision. There is luck involved in both games, however NL requires a much greater level of skill.
I think many beginners think that luck is a big factor for a couple of reasons. First, they dont understand the game as well as they think they do. There are times when people make what appear to be bad calls, but in reality the calls arent as bad. I was like that when i first started playing.
second, they play low limits. If you play on Party poker for example, and play the NL cash games and play the NL 25 tables, you cant really complain about the players. At those levels you will find a ton of beginners that will make plenty of mistakes and in the short run will have a few bad beats that can eat up your bankroll. And most people dont even have big enough bankroll to last through bad stretches.
I know of so many people that will have a bankroll of 100 and start playing at a NL 25 table. They get a couple of bad beats, blow their bankroll and them ***** that PP is fixed.
There is a reason some players make a fortune playing poker and some players lose their shirts, and its no luck
second, they play low limits. If you play on Party poker for example, and play the NL cash games and play the NL 25 tables, you cant really complain about the players. At those levels you will find a ton of beginners that will make plenty of mistakes and in the short run will have a few bad beats that can eat up your bankroll. And most people dont even have big enough bankroll to last through bad stretches.
I know of so many people that will have a bankroll of 100 and start playing at a NL 25 table. They get a couple of bad beats, blow their bankroll and them ***** that PP is fixed.
There is a reason some players make a fortune playing poker and some players lose their shirts, and its no luck
Like I said people confuse the net and tournies way too much with live cash games where guys buy in for a decent 5 figure CASH buy-in.
You dont see many if any all in bets pre flop, unless it is late and someone is short stacked and has not bought in.
you don't even see all that many all in bets after flops. Cash games are about just that, cash. Milking guys for REAL money, not trying to elimate them from the game.
I don't remember the last time I went all in, I may have had to call myself all in when I had a monster, but I rarely if ever go all in.
Most guys in cash games know that all in means you don't have a lot in terms of a hand or chips or both. It is actually one of the weakest plays there is in a cash game.
I am much more leery of a guy who has been smooth calling, then all of a sudden raises me a minimum raise (double my bet if I act first) on the river, when the card seemingly is a blank.
Especially if he seems to be begging for a call. And most assuredly pot odds will dictate a call. But in terms of real world live, cash games, calling someone in that situation is a losing play 7 out 10 times, pot odds or not.
One also has to factor in thos pre flop all ins. If guys waited thenwent all in on the flop, it is much harder for a guy with 2 overs to call the small pair, if the guy doesn't catch his card on the flop. So a preflop all in is a waste of time in my opinion. Unless of course you are to the felt and have to sooner or later...
You dont see many if any all in bets pre flop, unless it is late and someone is short stacked and has not bought in.
you don't even see all that many all in bets after flops. Cash games are about just that, cash. Milking guys for REAL money, not trying to elimate them from the game.
I don't remember the last time I went all in, I may have had to call myself all in when I had a monster, but I rarely if ever go all in.
Most guys in cash games know that all in means you don't have a lot in terms of a hand or chips or both. It is actually one of the weakest plays there is in a cash game.
I am much more leery of a guy who has been smooth calling, then all of a sudden raises me a minimum raise (double my bet if I act first) on the river, when the card seemingly is a blank.
Especially if he seems to be begging for a call. And most assuredly pot odds will dictate a call. But in terms of real world live, cash games, calling someone in that situation is a losing play 7 out 10 times, pot odds or not.
One also has to factor in thos pre flop all ins. If guys waited thenwent all in on the flop, it is much harder for a guy with 2 overs to call the small pair, if the guy doesn't catch his card on the flop. So a preflop all in is a waste of time in my opinion. Unless of course you are to the felt and have to sooner or later...
If the movie rounders portrayed a limit game, opinions would be vastly different. Like I said before, it takes more skill to win 9 pots while losing 2 to an opponent. In a limit game you will always be ahead of your opponent. In no limit, if those 2 loses are all in bets, theres a good chance you'll be behind or out, despite outplaying your opponent.
phdinsports said:
I assume you are new to the game. You are correct that in the SHORT term you can get stung more in no-limit. But if you are a good player, you know when you are getting the best of it and when to make your opponents overpay to remain in the pot. In the long run, if you make these plays that force people to play with improper pot odds, you will be rewarded much more in a NL game. There is a reason they call it the cadillac of poker. You example of winning 9 pots vs 2 would only apply if you took bad beats or were playing below a level of optimal play. In the long run, a skilled player gets the cake
.
peteep said:
Far from being new to the game. Anyhow, never said a skill player will not win long term in no limit, however would win more in limit game. At a club I've seen this happen three times past two weeks. NL minimum buy in 5g. Player A starts with 5g, after 6 hours has 23g infront of him. Player B starts with 15g loses it all in 1 hour, buys in 25g (the other two instances stakes were smaller) player A heads up with player B. Player A had pocket rockets, player B queens. Players B goes all in first, player A calls all in and loses. 6 hours of dominate play, numerous pots won, wided out in one hand. This never happens in limit games, cream always rises to the top (over time) and stays there!
