How does everyone feel about tables where 4 to 6 people will limp into every pot and a raise is QQ, KK or AA?

I think overall I like it. Every now and then the ATo that I raise in the CO after 3 limpers is going to run into a limped AJ, AQ, KK, TT, JJ etc. but most of the time I'm going to be way ahead of the limpers' range. And when I do have a huge hand in late position or the blinds it makes it pretty easy to build a big bot before the flop.

Post flop, of coures, a PFR is going to have a very narrow range.

Nah, you want crazy ppl who raise 8-4ss after 6 limpers. I see it often enough.

I love it. The table is loose and when they raise you know what they have. Big pairs don't come around often. Just don't overplay your hands post flop.

You should do a poker blog for limit and see how much buzz you get

I seriously had a table where in one hand I raised KQo in late position after several limpers, flopped a K, bet all 3 streets and only got called, and one of the limpers had AK. There was another hand where I raised AKo in late position after several limpers, bet the Qxx flop but checked back the turn and river when I blanked and the villain flipped over JJ.

Scottsdale a bad name lol lots of games

I used to play limit exclusively and quit poker pretty much when limit dried up and everyone moved to NL. It wasn't that I didn't want to or couldn't adjust; I just though NL was soul-crushingly boring. To this day I can't understand why someone would want to play a form of poker where at a live table you might see one showdown per hour, and bad players have almost no chance to win.

Seeing that limit is still alive at decent stakes in at least some parts of the country makes me want to get back in the game.

Minorly relevant to this topic:

Suppose you're observing this conversation:

NLHE player: Why do you play that fixed limit crap?
Me: I have a limited bankroll and can't afford to risk losing $200 in 5 minutes
NLHE player: then just buy in for $80 or $100!

Your reaction? I've had that conversation with my NLHE playing friend and just had it with a guy on a plane who says he plays 5/10nlhe in vegas.

Love means nothing to a tennis player.

It depends on your win rate at each game. If you don't win at NL and you're a LHE winner (let's take me for example), one answer is clear. If you're a huge expert at both, I'm guessing the best NL win rates are so much higher than LHE win rates that your risk of ruin could be lower at NL for a modest BR.
If you know/like a given game, someone playing a game that you don't like may seem silly. That's my guess about NL players hating the idea of you playing LHE.

It might be if your 5/10NL playing buddy is a super strong player, he thinks half stacking with like a 5BI roll it is almost impossible to lose -- he's a strong enough hand reader that it is going to take 3 two-outers in a row to bust him. I've played 1/2 NL with surf doc (he plays even higher than that, online NL), and he seemed like he was printing money in the game. Even for him, he got to guess for $1000 or $2000 whether the manic had AA or too many beers when facing an all in preflop with either KK or QQ. Turns out it was the beers and not aces.
I'm not sure if you're getting the benefit of super-huge win rates with a 40bb stack. If BR weren't an issue, which game would you play? If the answer is for NL, ask some NL player you trust what your effective money situation gives you as RoR. If you prefer LHE, maybe work on your replies. "I like getting their rent check one bet at a time. Hurts more than folding for 6 hours to get it all at once."

The response is that if you're playing comparable stakes (in terms of $/hour or $/100 potential win rate), your swings are going to be far worse in FL because your edge relative to risk is so much lower. Playing $0.50/$1 NL is likely far less swingy than, like $3/$6 FL.

I've had this happen where in the first hand I am shown AA/KK and in the second hand AA/KK/QQ more times than I care to count.

Then again, I think I play in the loose-passive scared player capital of the universe. One memorable example is I have KK, raise preflop, and bet every street on a AK578 rainbow board, get raised on the river, then three bet and get called by AA that was honestly worried I had a straight and was mad at himself because he overlooked the possible straight when he raised me.

It is a good game if being smug-called on the river by the nuts doesn't put you on tilt. I'm used to it, but I've seen visiting players completely go off their cheese when this happens...

The 5/10 guy (who is not a buddy, just a guy I was sitting by on a plane and noticed me reading SSHE on the plane) said a new one for me - "LHE takes the poker out of it. You can't bet enough to put someone to a decision." I asked him, "But surely, even at 5/10 you find villains who will call pot bets on the flop and turn with a gutshot, no? And don't you WANT that?" He said absolutely on both counts. I conceded that river decisions are more difficult in NLHE. The point is, yes, I got the feeling he felt like LHE was "a silly math game".

This, I think, was the point of my post. If you're a super-strong NL player, why would you ever even CONSIDER buying in for anything less than 100bb? Don't you maximize your edge the more chips you have on the table?

And even more to the point, if he's a strong player, why would he ADVISE someone to buy in as short as 40bb??? I mean 3 limpers and you raise to 10bb on the button with QQ, either there's an A or K on the flop and you have to fold after putting in 25% of your stack, or there ISN'T one and your SPR is already 1 and you have no other play than all in! Isn't the whole point that if you're a better postflop player than the other villains you want as many decisions as possible postflop because you'll make the RIGHT one more often than they will?

This question really made me think. The short answer, after giving it due thought, is I believe I would still play LHE for the simple reason that it's far more fun and a far better fit for my skillset (I'm much better at math than I am at reading people and hiding my emotions). The only reason I'd even CONSIDER going back to NL is the possibility of actually making money at it, but I make a six-figure salary so I don't need the $8 to $10 per hour supplement to my income. I'd rather play and have fun than play and fold for 6 hours.

Pointless, as I'm sure you know better than I do. Trying to tell an NL player that LHE is real poker is like trying to get a republican to agree with a democrat.

Perhaps I'm just paranoid, but it makes me nervous when people make blanket statements like this because it leaves out consideration for one thing: MISTAKES. A mistake in an LHE hand costs you no more than a big bet or two in most cases. In NL, a mistake can EASILY cost you a whole stack. Factor that into the overall variance and tell me if you still think, for example, $1/$2NL is less swingy than $4/$8LHE.

The rational answer is that it depends on what the biggest solidly beatable game is. A disproportionate number of LHE posters play in areas where there's more 40/80 LHE than 5/10 NL.

Equivariance games can be calculated. 10-15 BB for LHE, 60-80 bb for NL means 1/2 NL is about as swingy as 4/8-5/10 LHE, 2/5 NL about 10/20-15/30 LHE. Potential winrates for equivariance games are higher for NL (you can make way more at 1/2 NL than 5/10 LHE) so honestly if you have access to a regular 5/10 NL game it's pretty hard to justify playing LHE except on the truly elite level.

But what I always say is that 30/60 LHE is smaller than 1/2 NL because you can call down and only lose $150 at LHE but it could cost you the full $200 at NL. Or other trolly things.

Speaking of trollolololol, my favorite troll was when people were berating me at 1/2 NL. I got called for 30/60 LHE, nodded, then told everyone off, stood up, grabbed $400+ in $5s and stuffed it loose into my pockets, then yelled out loudly, "Is there a 30/60 seat open?" then pretended to storm off (pockets bulging) while everyone laughed at me.

You're close to Minnesota. Lots of limit here.

I spoke too soon. Friday night, board on river is 7d3c5c6c7c, villain has 4c. Raises and is 3-bet.

Villain thinks about laying it down, and after agonizing about how she obviously has 8c9c for about three minutes, he makes a sad call. He is then relieved to the point of giddiness that his straight flush is good.

(Other player had red aces, obv)


Totally worth pursuing for entertainment value, if nothing else. If you need to work on your "Stop criticizing other people's play" game, these tables are the end-boss level challenge.

End bosses are mental fortresses that don't insult bad play. They welcome it.

Whether or not the proton decays, as far as I know, is still unknown. If it does, the entire universe will eventually "die".

Limit poker is the most untapped game. Any decent kid will run laps around the older players. Yeah you'll have to sometimes fold for 4 or 8 dollars, but the older players chase everything.

There's guaranteed one nigh unbeatable crusher at every 4/8 table.

It's not just the older players. Plenty of "kids" sit at the LHE table while waiting for a seat to open at the NLHE table(s) or the NL tournament to begin. Most of those folks are even bigger fish than the nitty seniors at the table. As many of those "kid" NL players don't have a clue about how to change their game for LHE.

I confess, it's kind of fun watching them whine and cry for their 20-30 minutes about how much it sucks to be unable to "bet the idiot out of the pot"; or playing the game that "always goes 6 ways and has an idiot chase to the river to suck out on you." Then pick up their stack that is lighter than when the "kid" sat down and walk away shaking their head. Lesson learned young'in...or not

There was a flood of whiny kids in limit games around the poker boom.

People in general suck at poker. So saying old people suck or black people suck or rich people suck is kind of pointless because young people suck and white people suck and poor people suck too.

Ironically, poker (LHE included) will remain good for a while yet specifically because people have these ridiculous tribal affiliations. Old people will assume these Young Internet Punks suck and spend a lot more time figuring out how to beat YIPs than their fellow solid reg buddies. Young people assume Old Men Coffee suck and craft their game around exploiting the OMCs rather than their fellow solid reg buddies.

The number of people that I played 300+ hours with who know nothing more about my game than when I had played 3 hours with them is lol.

They all suck, but in different ways. They all have different tenancies that can be exploited, and YIPs tend to tilt easily, and are more vulnerable to tilt, etc. OMC is a term I wasn't aware of until recently looking briefly at the SSNL forum. OMC in contrast is also exploitable, but in a different way. And so forth. I am my own tribe.

I'm from the lineage Special-Snowflake Tribe.