Trouble deciding between Limit vs. No Limit

I've been doing a lot of early research and reading on Hold Em. I'm still stuck though on whether to commit to learning and mastering Limit or No Limit. I expect to play mostly with mixed groups of folks that I know and maybe work with. I suspect that means that the behavior will be difficult to predict, and that there could be a lot of loose players, and the psychology that one would expect to find in players who know how to read the board, would be different in those that don't.

Given the type of players I'd be playing, should I focus on Limit? It seems that L is more about playing the cards, where as NL is about playing the people. Any suggestions for a newbie like myself?

Rake is too ridiculous at lower stakes limit to even bother with it.

Take the rake out of the equation, then what? More interested in the substance of the two games and the intended opponents. Assuming no rake, which is better to learn for casual/loose opponents. Seems like casual players can be too invested in the post in NL games, and end up getting lucky too often. Am I thinking about this the wrong way?

yes, luck shouldn't be a factor. Learning NL will be of far greater utility and if you have really bad opponents, your edge will be bigger.

learn the game you expect to be playing with these people you know and maybe work with...

Both is about playing people. And imo, limit is even more strategic then no limit. Extracting max value out of villain there can be a bitch. But anyhow no-limit is definitely more popular nowadays.

Originally Posted by Nekrogovner

Both is about playing people. And imo, limit is even more strategic then no limit. Extracting max value out of villain there can be a bitch. But anyhow no-limit is definitely more popular nowadays.

Considering limit is considered a solved game by a lot of people this isn't even close to true.

Originally Posted by Icanhastreebet

Considering limit is considered a solved game by a lot of people this isn't even close to true.

If limit is a solved game, then wouldn't it be the game that statistically will win you more money against those who are uninformed opponents? Presuming you can find them?

i personally can't imagine how limit could be anywhere near as strategic as no-limit given its almost the exact same game except the variable of betsizing is removed. though i've not played much LHE at all.

start of learning nlhe. then learn cap nlhe once u reach a level of acceptable competency at nlhe. then learn lhe once u reach an acceptable level of competency at cap nlhe, by that time u should be playing mid-high stakes and lhe rake won't fuck you. now u have a game where, when it runs at 50/100 and above, you'll have an edge in something worth playing.

then learn plo, and dominate the world by having 3 different games to play - ull be able to get more action at bigger stakes, whereas the guy only knowing how to play nlhe has to sit and wait for nlhe while passing on other opportunites to profit.

Limit games are about pot odds,pot edge equity and great discipline. In no limit its about ranges, pot equity, board textures,implied odds and such. It depends on how much u plan on starting with, rake or no rake, online or live, local dog track type places or casinos. There are alot of variables that come into play. For limit I suggest sklanskys holder poker, as it is a great book to teach you about what I said above. And for no limit I suggest harrington on holdem: cash game series. As I've read quite a few no limit books and most of them are just crazy math books where hoh is more situational and opponent awareness. Just my 2 cents.

1. Limit is quite dull.

2. Can we increase the min post count needed to post links to 50.

Inorite. How does this fool get to 14 posts?

No limit poker is much more popular among the population. You can usually find more NLHE games, which means more fish. (we all love that)