Switched to Limit, back to NL - some learnings

[Chicago_Kid]

I started playing NL poker a couple years ago, before switching to limit late last year. I did so to work on my play while avoiding some of the huge hand-to-hand swings of NL--plus I was looking to hone my b&m casino game (mainly limit).

Having recently gone back to NL after playing limit for a year or so, I feel my game is stronger now than before I worked at limit. Here are some of the reasons I think I'm better:
- My postflop reads are stronger (continuation, inconsistency, picking spots for bluffs)
- My knowledge of "correct" plays is sharper.
- I push edges harder.
- I trap/slowplay much less.
- I relish the aggression not available in limit, and use it to its fullest extent
- I utilize the fundamental theorem of poker much better than I used to
- In retrospect, I wish I would have started with limit first, as my "tuition" for the NL game would have been much lower.

Wondering if anyone has experienced anything along these lines or can offer addt'l learnings.

[JeffreyGB]

One big difference you'll need to account for in returning to NL play: implied odds. If you learn to manipulate your opponent a bit, these can be huge in NL, whereas in limit they are, well, limited.

A specific example is low pocket pairs. In limit, it's often questionable (at best) whether to play them to a preflop raise. In NL, your implied odds are so huge that playing them to a preflop raise is perfectly fine.

Also, something I'm sure you know, limit is almost exactly the opposite game that NL is regarding drawing odds: in limit, you build a pot while drawing (provided the odds are right) and you end up drawing out a lot as a result. In NL, you want to make your bets large enough when you have a made hand that someone drawing against you is playing incorrectly. Building the pot isn't that big a concern, since you can raise as much as you'd like at any point. As such, betting in to your draw is mostly something you'd do to disguise your hand. As you move up, you'll see people who realize that building the pot with odds is good, and they'll minbet draws. This is a transparent play - you're not disguising anything. So while these small bets will build the pot, they end up destroying your implied odds.

[elipsesjeff]

limit is almost exactly the opposite game that NL is regarding drawing odds

Incorrect, limit is the exact SAME regarding to drawing odds. If you have odds to play, you play. You also try to limit your opponents odds by such manuvers as the checkraise.

[JeffreyGB]

limit is almost exactly the opposite game that NL is regarding drawing odds

Incorrect, limit is the exact SAME regarding to drawing odds. If you have odds to play, you play. You also try to limit your opponents odds by such manuvers as the checkraise.

I can see how that statement seems quite false. My point was that the major focus in limit is drawing when you can, building the pot if the odds are there. Your ability to take away odds from your opponents is severely limited by comparison to NL. You do it to the extent that you can, but that's significantly less than the corresponding odds-killing raises you can make in NL. In contrast, you are much less likely to have odds to draw in a hand in NL. Thus the focus becomes making hands on the flop and destorying the odds for anyone who could be drawing against you. Sure, you'll draw out when you can, but that's a much smaller part of play. The odds are the same, but the way you play them differs, because the texture of the game differs.

And btw, I'll definitely grant that my knowledge of limit is rather basic. I've only played about a thousand hands, and for the most part only barely beat the rake. So if my understanding discussed above is incorrect, please correct it.

[Greedo017]

"You also try to limit your opponents odds by such manuvers as the checkraise. "

i disagree that the same principles apply to drawing in NL. I base my drawing decisions more on implied odds than pot odds. if someone bets the pot and I have a straight draw, i might call it, knowing that if my draw hits I will make enough to pay me for my "mistake" in calling. in limit implied odds are non-existant. and, checkraising to give opponents bad odds isn't really necessary, or really used much imo, it just takes one bet to do that.

[Chicago_Kid]

So, in terms of "correctness", I would agree that the concept of implied odds is the major differentiation. NL provides MUCH more in the way of creativity and variation due to this fact, so there are often many "correct" plays.