This seems to be a typical response here and on BQ to any thread that brings up the relative merits of LHE vs. NL. It is amusing that a game that became popular exactly because it could easily be explained to a causal fan is considered to be the much more strategically interesting (with no proof given) by so many people. Next you have people who no idea of the depths of how to play a LHE hand assume that since they aren't aware of the opportunities to make expert play, there must be no such opportunities. It is the perfect example of an arrogant person who thinks if they don't understand a thing it must not be worth understanding. This post makes me think there will be a bright future in mixed games for years to come.

What other games are dumb to you? Chess? Go? Gin rummy? Backgammon? In none of those games can you really put your opponent to a single decisive decision. Lacking the element of unlimited bet sizing, each must be simple, boring, and on the whole worthless.

Perhaps this can all be brought back to a well delivered line by Matt Damon in Rounders. He said it so convincingly it must be true.

YES!!!

Because some people make lots of money at NL and making lots of money = being good at something and being good at one thing = being good at all things of the same basic type. That's why I draft Michael Phelps in my fantasy football league each year. He's awesome at swimming. Swimming is a sport. Football is a sport. And football doesn't even require goggles so there is much less to think about.

In before "because NL texas holdem is the Cadillac of poker."

lol but when he made the move on Chan he was playing limit haha.

For me I was going through continuous stretches of getting my money in a 4-1 fav, if not more than that, and constantly losing. 4 outers, 3 outers, 2 outers, playing 5/5 and 5/10 for stacks. This was for almost a year straight. It got so bad the beats I would tell my other pro-playing friends the type of beats I was receiving they wouldn't believe me, till I had them sweat my sessions to see if maybe I was doing something wrong and not noticing it. I wasn't. With limit at least from how I play the game and how I perceive it, a lot of people will call you down light, especially if you have an aggressive image as I do, so betting the whole way and getting paid off. For example, in NL If I have AK and he has A10 and the flop is A49 and I bet the whole way, by the time I get to the river, which say he hits his 3 outer, the pot is quite large, and he is prob. going to raise, now I'm put to a decision with TPTK, and let's say I know the guy is an idiot and has been shown bluffing before etc. and I look him up. Now it just cost me $600 or so where in my limit game the total would be about $180 with a raise on the river.

So I think the variance in each game is player dependent, and you would think seeing the river more often would be more variance, but for me it's the opposite for whatever reason that may be. I also feel you become a better player by playing limit before transitioning to NL, as you are seeing all streets, etc. as opposed to NL where you generally are just seeing a flop maybe a turn. I always felt limit games are more lively than NL, more people involved, talking etc. Not a bunch of young dudes with hoodies on typing furiously into cardplayer.com hand percentages while playing, etc. I know when I play limit I am more talkative, conversing than when I'm playing NL. I think overall unless you have played both forms for an extensive period of time, then making a judgement on it or saying one is a stupid game,etc is ignorant.

It is certain that the variance of NL is higher than LHE, and I can't imagine playing style matters enough to make them cross over. The achievable win rate of NL is higher. Here's a dirty secret about poker players, no one ever cares about luck during an upswing. We all write it off as skill. Hence, no one cares if the game has swings if they almost always win. People only care about the risk of downswings.

Risk of Ruin = e((-2 x WR x BR)/(SD x SD))

If your WR increases faster than your variance, your chances of big downers (all anyone cares about) go down. When people talk about high variance games, they're really referring to the chance of big losing streaks. In NL where the fish have zero chance, the expert doesn't have many big downers. In LHE the WR you can achieve is low enough that you do have them. Thus, LHE is a "high variance game" and NL isn't. It is poor nomenclature, as NL has a higher variance. If you have 5x the effective WR and 1.5x the standard deviation, the math says there is less a chance of big downer.

Even then, people are allowed to have preferences. A rational person can say that he prefers Game A to Game B. It is just sophomoric to use the term stupid to describe the one you don't prefer.

I may be wrong, but I find the opposite to be true. If you take comparable buy-in games, say 1-2NL where you buy in for $200, that would range anywhere from 4-8 to 8-16 limit (at least at Commerce). So at the start of the game, the money on the table is the same. In 1-2NL, it costs me $3 an orbit. In 4-8, it costs me $6 an orbit. To beat the blinds, I'd have to play more hands.

Plus, there's $6 at the start of every pot (and potentially more limpers and more callers of raises) so I'd be correct to play more pots.

Someone smarter than me might correct me, but being super nitty is not how you make money at LLHE.

Um, what about implied odds in NL? Plus I think using the terms "costing me" when refering to the price of the blinds may be a mistake. The cost of playing is what's raked. Someone correct me if I'm wrng with that thinking.

Lot's of stuff in this thread. I never was asking which game/players were better. What I was asking was why do some NL players seem to believe they are better at any other form of poker than those who either don't play or don't play much NLHE.


I think DougL hit the nail on the head when he said "It is the perfect example of an arrogant person who thinks if they don't understand a thing it must not be worth understanding." Obviously this doesn't apply to all NL players, but I sure hear a lot comments like some of those posted here whenever a NL player sits at a table I'm at and spews off a rack or two while waiting for his NL game.

The cost of playing is what you lose in the blinds + plus the rake. So if you are losing the equivalent of a sb and bb a round then you will be broke very quick. Everyone loses in the blinds in the long run, but the best players lose the least in the blinds.

I think it's the same type of thing you hear at any HE or Omaha table about stud. "That game is so boring" "I don't know how anyone plays stud" "Stud is for old people". I think everyone forgets that stud was "the" game before the boom in the 2000's.

Holdem players read books, read websites, read magazines, and watch TV about/involving HOLDEM. They simply do not understand stud and everything about everything about it. Occasionally a stud player from 10/20+ will sit down at a LHE game I am playing, and for the most part they are average to above average players. The more forms of poker that you understand, the better it makes you as a player.

I would correct this, but why tap the glass.

I say that to myself everytime a NL player sits down at a LHE table and complains about protecting his hands...

Anyone can make some big bet bluff to take down a pot.... it takes more skill to be able to chk raise bluff on the river profitably in lhe when the guy is getting 12:1 on a call and for balance considerations.