{This post has been removed}
Printable View
{This post has been removed}
Dude, that's a even a check/fold in limit.
{This post has been removed}
Because it puts the most strength on something I'm very good at, driving value. When you do bluff/semi-bluff there is no need to even bet as much as half the pot, so you're getting incredible pot odds.
Never cared much for SnGs due to the huge luck factor, lack of game selection as much of a factor and inevitably it comes down to a short handed game of you vs 2-3 other good or lucky opponents for most of the money with ginormous blinds rapidly increasing.
NL ring used to be sweet. 2 guys calling your AA/KK all-in with Ace-anything JJ/TT/99/88 wasn't uncommon. Then between the slow fishing season (summer), overall slight tightening up of the player base, the 6max tables attracting the action freaks and increase of multi-table rocks it's no longer the overstocked fish pond it used to be. Besides with the 50x BB buy in, it's waaaayyy too rock friendly. The blinds are too small and the stacks short for it to be worth playing much other than small pocket pairs for the set and Group 1-3 hands, or rather it's too damn profitable just playing those hands...
But I only need a Jack and a King for the runner runner nut straight ;)
{This post has been removed}
The river givth and the river taketh away. The better you are, the more it taketh away. That's true for NLHE, PLHE, LHE and 7CS.
Bluffing is imporant in limit too. Particuarly when dealing with the multi-table rocks that have a more interesting hand in the other window... At least in limit it's not a 2 to 1 or worse value proposition with the risk of the other guy going over the top killing the "semi" part of your semi bluff.
Actually, I got bored to death when I did a bunch of research and came to conclusion that in PP full table NL it really does pay to wait for Aces, Kings and sets, you can't do much about players that do this and you're really better off playing 8 tables at once than learning how to play more hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
That being said, 6 max has promice, but I went over to limit first because I was more familiar with it. Maybe I'll move to 6 max at some point...
Hey Rippy -Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
Fnord is right in that no matter what type of game you play you are going to be victimized by the river. He is also correct in that the better you play your hand the more likely it is that you will be a victim of the river because, yes, there will be chasers out there that will catch their draw and beat you on the river. But, I'm not sure that I see much difference between limit and NL with regards to being rivered.
I would say that this aspect with regard to Limit vs. NL is a wash, but for different reasons. In NL the bluff can be successfull because of the amount of your bet. People will be less inclined to call when it will cost them more to continue on. In Limit, at least from my experience, you can still bluff effectively but in a different manner. I have found that people are very receptive to the "quickness" with which a bet/raise/re-raise is placed on the table. Using the "auto-whatever" buttons seems to yield excellent results as a bluffing tactic in Limit poker. Again, just from my experience. I also find that a well-placed re-raise will fold many players trying to steal a pot. I will do this from time to time even when I have nothing if I feel that someone is trying to steal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
On the contrary, I would say, again from my experience, that I see far more showdowns in limit poker than NL. Much easier for calling stations to stick around for the river and draw you out. However, these showdowns can mean a big payday when you have a multi-pot and people are betting into your best hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE NL. But, I also find the different strategies involved with playing limit extremely interesting as well. Each has it's own merits and I don't think that I could effectively choose one over the other as far as a favorite. So, I'll play both!! :D
Limit is more of a 7 card game, if you get what I'm getting at here. Also in limit it's more practical for skilled players to raft the river, only with stronger draws on better (implied) pot odds.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmrogers7
Let us consider Mr. (semi-)Weak/Tight plays 8 tables at a time.
His weaknesses are:
1. Doesn't defend or play his blinds well
2. Plays few hands ABC style (easy to read)
3. Plays medium strength hands very strongly
4. Doesn't bluff much
I could go on, but in the interest of time, I'll just say exploiting these weaknesses is *far* more profitable at a limit table.
I've lost sympathy for players that play 8 tables at once waiting for Aces and Kings, then complain when they get cracked.
Absolutely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
In limit poker, a good player will probably get rivered more, but when they do get to a showdown they can really make the bad players pay and then you suddenly forget about being rivered a few hands before.[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
Consider this...
You pick a great game with immediate position on a loose aggressive player.
NL Version:
MP, you have TT.
LAgg raises to 6x the BB.
You re-raise to 18x the BB.
Rock goes all-in.
LAgg calls
You call or fold depending on your stack size, probably fold.
LAgg busts out and leaves the table.
Limit Version:
MP, you have TT.
LAgg raises.
You 3-bet.
Rock caps it.
Everyone calls and you play a flop 3-way.
I know where I'm at. I'm pretty certain where they're at.
Tell me again why NL requires more skill?
{This post has been removed}
Rippy - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Fnord's question here. I'm inclined to side with Fnord on this one. That's not to say that NL doesn't require any skill. However, I believe that there are many more factors at play that require your attention and thought in the Limit game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
That being said, I think I would say that NL Hold 'Em is probably the truest form of "gambling". Not necessarily the truest form of poker. Truth be told, I think that a game like draw poker is more of a truer form of poker than other types for one main reason. You have the ability to make the decisions on how to improve your hand by what you decide to keep or what you decide to discard. In a game like hold 'em your hand is at the mercy of the draw. Of course , factor in betting and that makes up for some of the lost control with regards to the cards in hold 'em. Anyway, just my 2 cents.
That being said, I would choose hold' 'em any day of the week over a draw poker game!
No, because you're getting horrible odds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I prefer making lots of smaller decisions where I'm more likely to be correct than my opponents, vs fewer bigger ones. Throw in the rock factor, and with the current environment it would take a heck of game to bring me back to full table cash NL at PP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
Ignoring the skill and profitability debates...
I just cannot see how there can be the same RUSH in limit. And since fun IS important, that decides it for me. I plan to make money, but enjoy it along the way. If it's not pleasant, I might as well be at work. Lets take my home games for example. When there is an all-in call the whole room gets excited and there is shouting and carrying on. We all gulp down more beer and stand on chairs (resin chairs thank god, but the dining room table is taking a beating). Oh the thrill. :D
To be clear, this is not simply a "gamblers" attitude. Because I do not gamble :) 5 trips to vegas and I've only ever played black jack hands when I have those 2 for 1 paybacks from Tropicana, so I'm up $20 something having gambled $40. Why bother when the math is against you? Poker is a different story.
Home (and even live B&M) games are a different beast. There NL becomes more about the players and postion. You got tells, trash talk, etc. You don't have 4 seats taken up by players sitting on 6 tables waiting for a group 1-2 hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretSquirrel
i'll jump into the fray:
-i'm not fond of playing limit, mainly, because i don't feel that i "can make something happen" like i can in a NL SNG (and i am getting very SNG-centric). my limit sessions usually consist of my stack getting run down, and then winning a big hand or two (big enough to beat the chasers) that replenishes it. i have a feeling if i weren't playing the lower limits, or if i sat down and played limit with the FTR crew, i would probably enjoy it a lot more. at least in NL, i know how to protect a good hand, and by god, if someone wants to mess with my good hand, i can make them really pay.
-i think to win at the lower limit tables, you have to be a good, somewhat tricky player (good for you jm and fnord). personally, i like the simplicity of being able to push all-in (if i can get some takers) pre-flop with AA or KK, or QQ when it's down to fewer players. i like playing other players stacks and cards, and picking on small stacks.
-if i was able to beat lower limit HE at this point, i'd be doing it. and it clearly is a beatable game - i'm just not there yet skill-wise or patience-wise yet.
my two chips.
24 hours with me and I could teach any one of you how to destroy a good .5/1 table. A few adjustments for rational players and moving up to 2/4 isn't too hard. I'll probably be looking at 5/10 in a couple months, although we'll see what the BBJP does for the limit games. Maybe 6 max NL is in my future.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishstick
Anyway, you guys asked why I'm spending my poker time at the limit tables and I've pretty much laid out my answer.
i'll take you up on that. maybe i'll make july "fishstick limit month".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
For me, I think my "limit dalliance" is more about trying to find out the differences between the 2 types of hold 'em (NL vs. Limit). Along the way I am picking up skills which I was unaware were necessary in deciphering between the 2 different types.
I take it as a challenge to learn the subtleties between the 2 and I think that by learning all I can about both of them I am becoming a better, more disciplined player who can adjust when the situation calls for it.
I don't think that I can say that I prefer one over the other. There is definitely a thrill in NL that really gets the adrenaline flowing. While that same thrill may be lacking in the limit game, I think it makes up for it by being able to hone my ability to read other players better and when to let go of a hand because I know I am beaten, or keep pushing because I have figured out another player's tendencies and I know I have the goods to take it to showdown and win big.
They are 2 separate beasts and to try to say that one is better than the other devalues the merits of each. I say, to each his own! It's all about getting better and making money no matter which arena you choose to do it in! Right? 8)
I don't mean to break up the flow of this thread, but this is one of the best threads I've seen here.
Rippy is the NL preacher and Fnord is the limit reverend. Both being very nice, and informative, but telling why their religion is the right one.
I have one thing to ask Fnord.
I am very weak at limit holdem, and I'd like to get some practice in, but I don't want to spend a lot of money getting better. I don't want to risk the bankroll of a $.50 / $1 table. Are $.05 / $.10 tables a bad idea? Do the low stakes promote chasers that make the game unfair?
Stop right there. Think about what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrind
on a site that lists "% flops seen" in their tables list, watch how high that number goes as the blinds get smaller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrind
can you say "yikes!"
I say $$$ ka-ching $$$Quote:
Originally Posted by fishstick
You just need a thick skin, thick bankroll and a few adjustments.
CAP IT BABY!!!!
OK, that was a stupid way to word that. Let me try again. With the low-stakes chasers in the $.05 / $.10 rooms, will it be useless to try and learn anything in there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
If you plan to play the 15/30 game in the near future, maybe. Otherwise loose (passive) game exploitation is a useful skill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrind
*In jumps Toasty*
I'd say a key skill to beating Limit and one that gives you a huge edge is hand reading skills.
I personally feel my poker has gone up a level in the last couple of weeks. I was playing today and folding what my friend thought was the winner and everytime at the SD he saw a hand that would have beat mine.
I think the key to winning at limit is kowing when to fold the losers more so than when to bet the winners, although at the same time if you think you are ahead you have to bet and raise. I'm doing some cheeky value bets on the river with as little as a pair of threes because I know i'm ahead.
I wanted to take a poker break, but atm I feel I need to play at my current level before I do, I don't want to return in a weeks time playing any less than I am now.
For the last few months straight not 1 day has gone by where I havn't played or read a poker book, I have 2 poker books in my car, 1 in the bathroom :) and 6 at my GFs. I've read most 3 times I'm even dreaming about poker and starting to sound like someone out of rounders with all the poker referances im adding in my day to day chat (deff a bad thing).
I think I might have found an enjoyable second job, and like Mr fnord, I'm hoping to be beating the 5/10 game in a few months.
Still got to be careful with those folds..Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty
Folding a winner is a 5++ BB mistake
Betting a loser is a 1-2BB mistake
[quote="Fnord"]the NL equivalent:Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty
Folding a winner is a "how big is your stack" mistake
Betting a loser is a "how big is your stack" mistake
:)
good quote, fnord!
That's why you need good hand reading skills, backing two losers over 100 hands and there goes all your profit, at the same time as you say folding a winner is the same mistake.
I think on the whole its easier to bet a loser than it is to fold a loser which is why i feel its key.
Folding a winner when the pot is big is a huge mistake. You would have to misbet/bluff a lot of losers to equal that one mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty
BTW, would you have folded this one? (granted the pot is small...)
Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter
Preflop: Fnord is SB with K:diamond:, A:spade:.
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, MP3 raises, CO folds, Button folds, Fnord calls, BB folds.
Flop: (5 SB) 4:spade:, 3:diamond:, 7:spade: (2 players)
Fnord bets, MP3 calls.
Turn: (3.50 BB) 7:diamond: (2 players)
Fnord bets, MP3 calls.
River: (5.50 BB) 7:heart: (2 players)
Fnord checks, MP3 bets, Fnord calls.
Final Pot: 7.50 BB
Results in white below:
Fnord shows Kd As (three of a kind, sevens).
MP3 shows Ks Qc (three of a kind, sevens).
Outcome: Fnord wins 7.50 BB.
Fnord I think your missing my point, I'm talking about not calling down big hands, when you know you are beat and yes with the right reads I often will call someone down with A high if i suspect they are bluffing.
I'm not talking about playing weak/tight, I'm talking about folding when you know you are beaten, I may fold the occasional winner but with the blinds double at the turn/river I can assure you im saving a hell of a lot more money than i'm loseing.
As of late that is, also if the pot is large enough that YHIG by only a 10% chance then you would call the bet.
This is by far one of the most interesting threads I have read in a long time. I think I might share a story, sorry if it is slightly off topic. My PP playing started like most people’s a depleted bankroll and low morale, but as luck would have it I got a second chance some time in late May. A mysterious and measly 20 dollars was in my account; I decided to play it. This time I only played PL 25 dollar buy in. And in 3 weeks I was able to turn that 20 into over 500 cashed out with about 150 in the account. I was happy to make back all I have lost and then sum. As this crazy game of poker went on I kept thinking that I am just getting lucky. However even I couldn't help thinking that I was doing something right, that is until the week of bad beats came. Not to bore you with the details, since I know we all have been there. But this was my first time in my life where I had AA and had them crack about 8 out of 10. I have very un imaginative play and with aces I always raise pot and reraise and go all in if raised before. That is what worked for me and I thought I was leaving profits on the table but to me being safe and avoiding bad beats is very important. In those few hands I lost my 150 bank roll and as personal choice I refused to put more money into the account. I was wondering if someone here (Fnord) can point me in the right direction. I decided that I will start playing limit, once I get the proper bankroll, but I was wondering what kind of adjustments I need to make from pl to limit. Sorry for this long and mostly uninformative post. This forum has been the main resource for me in the past few months. Thank you all for posting and special thanks to Eric, Xianti and Fnord.
Bankroll, bankroll, bankroll. Without it you're at the mercy of your first big negative swing. Particularly the players that have lower win rates than the more profitable members of this board.
I've taken mulitple -$200+ swings at $25NL/PL and I've heard lots of stories of solid players taking -100++ big bet swings at limit. So far my worst limit swing was over -50 big bets. That being said, I suspect Tanaka, Xianti, Eric and our better SnG players (hard to compare one to the other) all have higher win rates than I do.
If I had to build a bankroll on a minimum investment. I would buy-in for $200 and play Party's .5/1 limit game to get up to $500 (about 6k hands at my win rate, being new to limit, plan on 20k hands.) Then I would start to mix in a 2/4 game or 6 max $25 NL.
The other key to getting a bankroll going is GAME SELECTION. If it's looking a little rocky leave. This isn't the time to see where you stand against other rational players.
I am suprised how pot limit hasn't been brought up.
Dan N. has his thoughts listed on his webpage. I respect almost everything he says regarding poker.
According to the well known pro players, and perhaps the not so well know WCP's, pot limit is superior to limit and no-limit. Most well respected players feel that should be the WSOP main event.
I will say that in NL, bad players go broke faster - leading me to believe that this hot streak it is on will eventually run its course. Limit, (although I hardly play) will always have their fair share of bad players regardless of the time.
I've seen fish dump hundreds of dollars at both. Wherever the fish go, I will follow...
:lol: Limit does have the reputation of being old-fashioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I agree with Rippy and also Tanaka's essay of No Limit vs. Limit. I never really tried limit, and I'm sure it can be profitable, but for now I like the combination of thrill and skill in the No Limit cash games.
Guess i still have a lot ot learn. For me after a big lost like that i need a break i guess it hard for me to stomach a loss of 200 on just "bad luck". Can the 50 cent limit game be beat? I have read Holdem for advance players but i believe that would be out thinking the opponets and only trapping myself. Any good books on utlra low limit?
P.S is Poker tracker a wise investment?
Read Izmet http://slicer.headsupclub.com:3455/16/Home and you'll do fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by !Luck
S&M have a low limit book comming out soon too...
YES!Quote:
Originally Posted by !Luck
I'll second Fnord on the PT remark. I have absolutly no doubt PT will pay for itself within 1 month!
lol, those guys should pay me for how much good press i give them.
If I was you !luck and I wanted to learn Limit I'd start from the bottom and work my way up.
If you are not to bothered about the $$'s, start on Stars 0.05/0.10 or something and then keep moving up a level after you have won 300 big Bets at the next level. If you can afford it start with $300 at the .5/1 but, whatever you do Do Not ever play in a level without 300BBs, you could easily play great poker all night and lose your bankroll.
Biggest swing i've had so far was over -100BBs. I checked through all of my hands and they were all missing and getting outdrawn, but it did make the marginal trash stand out a mile as I got severely punished for playing it. This was the only good thing about it, I got to cut out the trashy hands i was playing before thinking they were mildly profitable.
I play 6max btw which has more extreme swings.
TTT - thought our newer members could benefit from this old chesnut.
Personally, I would say arguing between limit and no limit holdem as to which is the better TYPE of holdem isn't justified at all.
As I'm sure you will all agree, no limit holdem and limit holdem are pretty much too completely different games. I can guarantee that you will go into a limit table with, say, 8 players and you will have a completely different stragety as to when you go into a no limit table with 8 players.
Therefore it is my firm belief that you cannot say that limit and no limit holdem follow the same type of poker and therefore you cannot argue as to which is the better, because they are COMPLETELY different.
Ive tried both limit and NL out to some extent. I'll still mess around every now and then with Limit but nothing too serious. I just find NL to be way too profitable on a consistent basis to play limit reguarly. Now dont get me wrong, there are a couple regulars on the NL tables I play at that easily clear over a couple thousand a week at limit. However, neither my skill nor bankroll is at the point where I can do like them. So either has the potential to be very profitable but I find that I'm much more comfortable with the style of play needed to consistently win at NL.
Also, with the understanding of the game that some of the people on here have, I'm surprised that some of you aren't playing higher stakes than what you are. Either where you play is really good or where I play (Pokerroom) is really soft.
I think this site points this out as the most important first decision you can make, and if its not the first in every book, site, paper you read, its very near the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
I was all over this when I was playing at Paradise. They had the %seeflop info in the table selection screen, and I used that alot. When I switched to Party/Empire, it took longer to find a good table, and I started sitting in on bad games too often, and unfortunately I didn't always have the sense to leave. This more than anything else caused a huge variance in win/loss, bad beats, etc.
I'm playing $1/$2 NL at PokerStars now and liking it. I look for a table with a seeflop% of 35% or more (the more the better), a good number of hands/minute (good indicator of how many hands are being drawn out to the river, plus I HATE sitting there while the same guy gets his calculator out hand after hand...) and a reasonable pot size.
With this data, I get in the waiting line for any attractive table and start watching them. When a seat comes up at any of these tables, I take it, regardless of position (unless there's a huge stack that has position on me). After a few hands I get to know if I like the table or not, and I play VERY conservatively until I know I like it. If its not the right table, I'm usually waiting at one or more others and switch to them as they come up, until I find one I like.
I also play only one table, unless I'm still looking for the right one. I like to get to know the players, and PokerStars has a pretty stable population from what I can see so far. At Party there were so many fish coming and going and I didn't run into the same guys very often. I tihnk at Party there also was a tendency for a good game to go bad quickly, as the sharks moved in and the fish busted out. Haven't seen that as much at stars.
The only thing I dislike about PokerStars is that I can't easily view the last hand history, like you can at Party. Anyone know if this is available, or do you have to do the whole e:mail thing?
I actually think that the % to the flop is the *most* important statistic on a small stakes table. I prefer it to average pot, because big pots can also be caused by a couple of aggressive players, who tend to play better than the limpers. I'd rather see 6 to the flop for 1 bet than 3 to the flop for 2 bets, even though the pot size may be similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by heatman
I don't think I understand the game all that well, but I would like to chime in here. The thing that keeps me from moving up is bankroll. My initial stake was $500 about 2 months ago, when I first began playing for real money online. I have since built that up enough to play $3/$6.Quote:
Originally Posted by JB
Having a job alleviates needing a >300BB bankroll since you can always rebuy, but I personally would prefer not to invest any more money and just continue to build my bankroll until it is large enough to handle the swings at higher levels.
If I keep running good and bonus whore a little more, I'll probably move to $5/10 in a few months.
All I can say was last night a dude with his pocket tens was enough in love inspite of my aggesive play only to river a ten and beat my aces.