Should I play NL or Limit?

Hey, just want first to say that FTR is a great site, I've been lurking for ages, hopefully picking up something useful!

Anyway, I have a quick question - maybe someone can help me out.

I've been playing poker for maybe 3 months now and, if you don't count the bonuses, I am a slightly better than break even player at Limit 1/2. I started off playing micro-limit NL SnGs, did well there, and got up to playing $5 SnGs, where I would place ITM maybe 50%, and 1st maybe 25% - which is basically how I built my bankroll.

I've read Play Poker like a Pro (the biggest waste of money ever on a book), Harrington on Holdem I and II (great), Small Stakes Holdem (v. useful) and Theory of Poker (v. interesting).

Anyway, after reading SSH, and some posts here, I shifted from NL to Limit, because I'm very mathamatecially inclined, and felt that it would be a good way to get the basics together. I have a BR of $400, and play the $1/2, (I know I'm playing above my BR, but it was the only way I could clear one of the bonuses, and I'm darned if I'm going back down!).

I am winning very slightly at this level, but probably nowhere near the amount I did when I was playing the SnGs. And one thing just jumps out at me, which is that the players on Prima Poker at Limit are nowhere near as loose as SSH seems to think they should be. Generally, three players see the flop, and they are willing to give it up when someone shows some strength. It just strikes me that maybe people who play Limit are a bit more experienced, have maybe read more books etc., know about Pot Odds and then play OK, whereas maybe all the new fish go on to NL because that's what they see on TV, that's what they play at home etc? Would I be right in thinking that I would be able to make more per hour by playing in something like NL 25 because the players would be much looser? Or should I keep cracking away at Limit until I can beat it very convincingly and build my BR?

Thanks for your help!

First off, welcome to FTR!

My rather general advice would be to play to your strengths. It seems you have the ability to play NL SnGs, so I would advise playing these. Ultimately, whilst you want and should be looking to improve all the time etc, this is largely to serve the main aim which is to make money!

I could suggest that you play a bit of both, but I think it is better to look to specialise and really try and nail a certain facet of play (e.g. SnGs, NL Ring, Limit Ring) because each has it's own little nuances.

Sorry if this isn't quite the advice you were looking for, but ultimately you need to ask yourself
(a) which form do you enjoy playing the most?
(b) which are you better at?

Once you answer these questions, away you go!

Oh, and please read the BR Management thread.

Post hands, ask questions, enjoy!

Limit poker will allow you to wade into more sites for bonuses, as you can play at a higher table stakes level, and often meet raked hand bonus requirments more easily. Because each bet is based more on pot odds (a rough explaination) quick decisions can be made and more tables played at one time.

That being said, more of the folks around here play NL (it used to be part of FTR's description that it was about NL). It is currently the more popular form, so there are more fish, and at low level play one's bb/hr rate can be relatively high.

Even the differences between tournament play and ring games are significant.

I learn something every time I swich to a different form a poker - limit, Omaha 8, 7CS -- which I can bring back to my usual game. But it makes sense to focus on one type.

Well, I am very biased, but I think NL is the way to go. There is a bigger community, which means more fish, and a good NL cash game player will make money alot faster than a good limit cash game player. As a game, I think NL has more depth to it, and therefore I enjoy it more. There is still plenty of math in NL to satisfy you.

Be warned though, with bigger reward comes bigger risk. NL is a game of big swings, and can be alot tougher on your BR. Before you switch, ask yourself if you are ready to lose 5 buyins in one day to bad beats without breaking a sweat. If you cannot answer yes to this, then perhaps NL isnt the right move for you yet.

I thought limit was more swingy than NL?

I prefer no limit for the simple reason that the bad players are able to dig themselves much deeper with their mistakes. The truth is, with limit, one of the keys making +EV plays is chasing draws. Most bad players don't know this, but since they are all calling stations anyway, they generally make the right calling decisions.

However, in no limit, its rarely correct to call bets and raises. Its more of a game of folding, and bad players are unable to fold.

If the players at your table never fold in limit then I think you have just found a very easy game to beat.

Originally Posted by Gareth

If the players at your table never fold in limit then I think you have just found a very easy game to beat.

Yes but if you find a NL game where the players never fold you will beat it much faster.

I think it was Fnord who said: "Limit is a game of pushing around small edges until they add up into a nice chunk of change.

No Limit is about finding a big edge and pushing it hard".... or something like that.

Uh oh. Another Limit versus No Limit contest.

You can make about as much money at either one for the following reason:

You need $1000 to be properly rolled for .25/.50 no limit. If you carve out 8bb/100, then you make $8 every 100 hands.

With the same 1000 bankroll, you have almost enough to play 2/4 limit. If you can carve out 2bb/100 there, then you make $8 every 100 hands.

Case closed.

I think another difference (from what ive heard) is that while low stakes NL tables are much easier to dominate by basically set hunting and taking stacks all over the place, once you get up to the medium-high stakes there are far fewer fish at No limit than there are at limit.

This is just what ive heard since im not remotely near high stakes yet and ive never played anywhere near high stakes limit either.

sngs suck (yes, ill repeat that sngs suck)
nL ring is easily beatable at <200nl just by set hunting and making opps make horrible calls
Limit is more about making good decisions repetitivly.
While NL player has the satisfaction of being up say 10 buy ins limit is about the long run but it is just a profitable imo.
Ive played 5/10lhe and upto 200nl and turned over similar profits at both.
It really does depend on what you like. Eventually though, play both.

sngs don't suck you just have to massively multitable them to make any decent money