Limit or No Limit?

Well I've been playing poker online now for about 3 weeks. I've been playing limit for most of it and have been winning overall. I've always been slightly afraid to play no limit because of the chance I may lose my whole buy in at once. Anyway I decided to give it a go after watching bigspenders micro videos and reading a few books.

To my surprise I started winning and winning big (relatively ). Here's an image of my progress over the last 3 weeks.
As you can see I have made more profit from low stakes NL in 24 hours than I have playing Limit for 3 weeks.

I found this quit surprising and am wondering what to focus on. I want to play poker for the long term, build a bank roll and move up to higher stakes.

I think playing NL at low stakes will be the best way to build a bankroll, but at higher stakes I assume the games are much different. So I guess the main question is should I just forget about Limit and focus on NL, or will building skills & knowledge in Limit games be worthwhile for higher stake games?

Limit.












Oh wait limit sucks I meant No Limit.

Originally Posted by Nexter

As you can see I have made more profit from low stakes NL in 24 hours than I have playing Limit for 3 weeks.

should I just forget about Limit and focus on NL, or will building skills & knowledge in Limit games be worthwhile for higher stake games?

Yo. Don't expect to maintain that win-rate if you stick to no-limit - this is a nice example of variance - 400 hands is nothing... choose the one you prefer to play, and play it consistently for a while. As for risk of losing your whole roll in NL, if you're playing with 40 buyins+ this shouldn't be a risk. Most people recommend a solid grounding in limit before venturing into NL, not sure if I agree with this entirely. Just be careful with that all-in button!

no limit

also, 6k hands is nothing. don't get your hopes up too high and expect to just cream everything in sight.

you were playing totally different levels, .05/.10 limit is like $2nl in terms of BR management.

I plead the 5th on this one, I started with limit and now play no-limit. I think it's great to learn both and figure out which one suits your personality, bankroll, variance-tolerance levels (btw, limit is more swing than no-limit), etc....so you can make the best decision for the long run.

I agree 6k hands is not much at all. But I wanted to try out NL and see how I went. I find NL a lot more enjoyable actually. From my experience although very limited so far, is that in limit you play really tight wait for the big starting hands and win 2-3 pots an hour. No limit offers a lot more in strategic play and you can win many more pots with only marginal hands.

It says $5NL in the stats, but I'm playing 0.02/0.04NL. I think I've had a good run of cards and picked some nice weak-tight tables. I started off stealing a lot of pots (which is so fun when you have a marginal hand, can't do that in limit). Though I just lost a $5 buy in 10 mins ago. Good learning experience though. I currently have a bankroll of $60. I think thats big enough for the level I'm playing at or is it?

Thanks for your advice so far. I'm still a poker noob so I think I'll play both Limit and NL until I get at least 20-30k hands at the current levels I'm playing at. Should get me a solid grounding before I move on.

i'd prob wait til like $80 to play $4nl. and yes, nl IS more enjoyable...it's a fact.

yea martin, how's playing $10nl FullRing? You were at my table yesterday when I was recording a video but my chat is banned over there from saying "wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" too much during Char's FT run.

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

yea martin, how's playing $10nl FullRing? You were at my table yesterday when I was recording a video but my chat is banned over there from saying "wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" too much during Char's FT run.

lol awesome did you make sure to criticize me for all of ftr to see? as far as the playing goes it's fine now. the rb helps a ton. my 1st 30k hands were break-even and the last 12k or so have pretty much gone the way they are "supposed" to go so that's good. i was starting to feel like such a noob not bein able to beat those friggin idiots. i should prob just go ahead and move on up to 25nl since i got my 20 buy-ins if i include my rb for the month. here's to never having to play 10nl again...cheers! oh and also wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

damnit. I wanted to be the first to crash your video and get my entire s***ty game picked apart for all the newbies to see how not to play. I thought we were friends.

unibomber, are you unibomber1 on prima network?
if so, you own me so far.. but Ima gonna kick yo ass

Originally Posted by Nexter

I find NL a lot more enjoyable actually.

Then play no limit

Originally Posted by Nexter

It says $5NL in the stats, but I'm playing 0.02/0.04NL.

yeah, at the most micro of micro-stakes you often buy in with 125bb, I still think of it as $5NL, and the difference isn't huge

Originally Posted by Nexter

I started off stealing a lot of pots - Though I just lost a $5 buy in 10 mins ago. Good learning experience though.

ahh, the good 0l' all-in pot steal vs the nuts...

Originally Posted by Nexter

I currently have a bankroll of $60. I think thats big enough for the level I'm playing at or is it?

not really. Two options I guess, grind at $0.05-$0.10 limit a while longer or cross your fingers that you won't downswing, then you'll soon enough not have to worry about it. If you keep playing no limit then maybe buy in a little short in the meantime though - $4?

Originally Posted by Nexter

until I get at least 20-30k hands at the current levels I'm playing at. Should get me a solid grounding before I move on.

very solid... I suggest moving up to $10NL if your roll somehow hits $300 before the 20k hands...

umm, are you getting any rakeback or bonuses while you're doing this? what site you playing?

Party - right? so no rakeback and bonuses are a hard grind at those limits... what's your alias?

I play at party with the alias "Nexter"

Though I am thinking of cashing out and moving to pokerstars for the 100% bonus up to $50.

Edit: Well getting partypoints is kind of like rakeback? I can redeem $1 for every 100 points. Got just over 300 atm.

I dont think party points even come close to a 33% rakeback programme or similar.

If you tilt easily or don't fancy extremely high levels of variance then play NL... If you really want to get a rock solid understanding of the mathematics of poker then play limit. I also think limit is an easier game to play whilst developing your multi-tabling skills if you ever plan on 6-tabling etc.

FWIW - I play 6max limit cash games for the grind, and NL mtts for fun (and to stop my NL game from going "rusty").

Yeah, I agree that limit is easier for learning multi-tabling. I usually play 4 tables at once atm. Worked my way up to it, by adding a table when I felt comfortable.

Though you reckon NL is better if you tilt easily? I get slightly tilted sometimes, but it's not a big problem for me. I would think it would be easier to blow your buy in tilted playing NL than limit?

You could certaintly blow your buy-in quicker in NL, but what I'm reffering to above is not tilting from losing 1 big pot but tilting from losing hundreds of hands in a row where you were a firm favourite until the river.

In fixed limit holdem you are pushing lots and lots of small edges to make profit in the long run, because the edges are so small there are large (and I really do mean large) swings in variance. You also play on pot equity alot more in fixed limit (at least at small stakes) so you may find yourself trying to get as much money in the pot as possible with only a small chance of winning the hand (ie, if the pot is 6 handed on the flop, and you work out that you will win by the river 20% of the time, you want to get as much money in the pot as possible right there). Obviously you may have to make this play a dozen or so times before you start seeing a profit from it.

Bascically, I think you need a much larger sample size in fixed limit before the variance "evens out" if you follow my logic?

Ah ok, I see what you mean. I'm not really at the stage where I think like that. I obviously have a lot to learn about playing limit. I don't really play like that. Usually take the safe approach.

The kind of situations I've mentioned above arent "unsafe"... they are profitable in the long run. However, these kind of plays do become unsafe if you do not exercise proper bankroll management, heck, getting all-in preflop with aces against 22 is unsafe if you dont have the bankroll to take a beat one out of every five times! Just another thought to add - if you want to "play safe" I'd recommend full ring over shorthanded games.

Personally, I think it is good to start out with limit to really develop your mathematical understanding of the game and how to exploit your opponents most minor flaws, but you could probably build your bankroll faster by playing micro-stakes NL if you only have a small starting roll.

Best of luck whatever you decide.

Limit is far more fun to me. You play more hands, you see more situations, and youre just altogether more involved in the game. That said, limit is a significantly harder game in basically every aspect exactly because youre playing more hands, pushing smaller edges, and it is *crucial* to get every bet right (We only expect to win one big bet every hundred hands, so making one incorrect bet essentially ruins your profit.)

NL is like a job, a very well paying, not particularly difficult, job.

That said, I dont think i'd go back to playing limit online even though I was quite good at it, and made far more money at limit than i have at NL. I do enjoy playing limit LIVE, though.

Limit? WTF is that?

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Limit? WTF is that?

A leash for the push happy.

I kid.

Play what you enjoy. Play what you're good at. If the two are not the same game, play both.

I play limit, in part to fund my MTT/SNG education. I find the time away from the one game helps concentration in the other.

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Limit? WTF is that?

A leash for the push happy.

Gold Jerry, Gold!!

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Limit? WTF is that?

A leash for the push happy.

heheheheh, way too true and sadly a leash I have had to put on myself.

Everything Euph said though is pretty much spot on. NL is great fun and I think allows you to develp really good postflop skills in terms of reading weakness and making plays at people and can turn good winrates, but limit allows you to see many more situations in a shorter period of time and I think this also helps your game.

Bottom line is to play what you enjoy but it also helps to at least try the variant games to see if you are actually better at one than another.

Was thinking about this on the way home from work and while it's not directly related to the OP it is related to the topic so figured I'd post here rather than start another thread.

I decided to try and work out how LHE and NL relate to each other in terms of stakes required to attain the same $/100 hands given accepted median player winrates, and how the bankroll requirements relate.

Assuming a win rate of 1BB/100 for limit holdem and 5ptBB/100 for NL is can be seen then in terms of BB/100 we have 1BB/100 LHE, 10BB/100 for NL and therefore to attain the same $/100 we need to be playing LHE for stakes 10x that of NL, eg 5/10 LHE = $100 NL

Looking now at BR requirements, using the std 300BB = 5% RoR if you don't move down in stakes for LHE* and a 100BB buy-in for NL (ie no short-stacking) you'd require 10x the number of BB for NL as opposed to LHE, or 3000BB or 30BI.

From this I think it can be seen that when someone is asking about when to move up stakes in NL we need to be more prudent with advice and perhaps advise having at least 30 BI's rather than the 20-25 a lot of people suggest.

*Taken from a thread I saw on 2p2 but can't find atm to link to.

Hmm... no. Well, yeah. Sorta.

If a 100nl player sat down at 5/10 LHE he'd get slaughtered. And for 6max LHE we would suggest more than a $3k bankroll for 5/10, closer to 5k due to inherent swinginess.

Yeah, I'm not saying a $100NL player should sit at a 5/10 LHE I was more looking at a theoretical basis of what the equivalent levels would be as a basis for deciding which game to play.

For instance if I am trying to decide which game to play, based on a required hourly rate, then it would be nice to see that it would probably be better to start out playing $100NL while mixing in some lower level LHE to learn the game than having to brave 5/10 LHE if I hadn't played it before.

...

most random bump ever?

oh and btw - isnt unibomber already a member on FTR?

I guess he searched his SN and found the other unibomber (which is what he meant when he said he found this forum by searching himself on google).

Welcome to FTR, uni.

Originally Posted by daven

Originally Posted by Nexter

I currently have a bankroll of $60. I think thats big enough for the level I'm playing at or is it?

not really. Two options I guess, grind at $0.05-$0.10 limit a while longer or cross your fingers that you won't downswing, then you'll soon enough not have to worry about it. If you keep playing no limit then maybe buy in a little short in the meantime though - $4?

I disagree with the br nits on FTR, especially for nano-stakes. Let me play devil's advocate. The 30+ buy-in minimum br is for folks with large stacks of cash in their br's. They have to protect their stake to keep playing. They even calculate their "risk of ruin."

LoL, we're talking about $60, guys. Play solid, hope for the best, and don't jones too much if you bust out. Just rebuy another $60. Or start saving now, and in a few weeks add $50 more, regardless of your br. If you can't afford a couple $60 buy-ins from current cash reserves, why the heck are you playing poker? You need a better job and some money management help - not a poker hobby.

Perhaps I'm different than most of these folks, but $100 here or there isn't too worrisome. When the total br I have invested in poker gets above what I could comfortably cover during even the tightest month budget-wise, I might get concerned. About $500 in br is where I get nitty. Until then (for me at least), there's no ruin to risk.

Just understand you have a fairly good chance of playing decent and busting out you if "neglect to follow" the nittiest br requirements.

...

Wow interesting bump. Robb I asked this question ages ago but I disagree with you here. I think bankroll consideration is important at any level. It's not about the money, yeah its only $60. But I don't want to be an internet gambler blowing $60 a week because I'm playing stakes too high for my bankroll. Also by practicing good bank roll management now I won't make any silly mistakes when I have a larger bankroll. Since this post I've been grinding away and doubled my bankroll with limited risk when I busted out. That gives me a lot more pleasure knowing that my hobby that costed me $30 to start and gives me hours of entertainment doesn't cost me a thing, in fact I make money from it.