yah this is one of the main reasons why its hard to win in lower stakes live limit hold'em.

i played LHE the first time i ever played live in a casino. i walked by a NL table, saw the action and decided that i wanted to be sure to play for 8 hours or so before i left since i drove from philly to ac to play. not too far, but far enough that i didn't want to turn around and leave an hour later. anyway, it was a lot of fun. i played for 8 hours and won like $40. i could make more at a minimum wage job, but not have as much fun.

whenever i go on a losing streak due to variance or bad play at nl now, i think, maybe i'll sit at a LHE table. then i think i would be really bored to do that and i'd rather just go to the NL table shortstacked. it's not that i don't respect LHE players, but i just don't think the rush is the same as playing NL. just my opinion.

In most casinos that offer both games, the weaker players always seem to choose limit over no-limit, and naturally the perception is that NL is a tougher game.

I do agree that since mistakes are magnified in NL, you need to be a better player to win. But I sure do love it when an NL player sits down at a limit game.

well said.

I think that a lot of NL players like the idea that you can win a hand without having cards and facing a showdown.A 40 BB river bet is harder to call then a 2 BB getting 8-1 on your call.Or you have a monster and can get paid on one good hand.A good poker can play either and both require a slightly different set of skills.I find both games to have thinking spots.The decisions at limit are sometimes predicated more-so with math and pot-odds then NL making some plays seem methodical.At the smaller stakes I do prefer NL.I think the draw with mid to higher stakes limit is the average pot size is higher.Nl may have a huge pot followed by a dozen real small ones.I find there are good and bad players in both games to say one is better then the other is just silly.

Sometimes trolling is funny to me. Don't know why this was one of those times.

I enjoy both limit and NL games, but it's hard for me to agree with the premise of this thread. Do NL players really think they're better at other forms of poker? Or just big bet poker? Guess I don't agree.

Not to derail the thread or anything, but why do people keep saying that NL is higher variance game than limit? The swings might be bigger in NL, but seems like a game where you have so many more showdowns per hand played would have way more variance.

While I agree that LHE players are likely to get more hands per hour than NLHE players, I don't follow the logic here. Although it is convention to assess one's winrate as a per hour statistic, the designation of 'per hour' is arbitrary. It may as well be per day, per month or per millenia. If a LHE player gets more hands per hour, resulting in paying more rake + tip per hour, then s/he also has more possible hands to win and more potential profit/loss per hour. The per hour thing doesn't hold water here, imo.

More rake = more hands = same win/loss rate per hand for a given player.

Ok let me get this straight. You are going to tell me you have to think more to play no limit then limit??? Well let me ask you this question. What are the thought processes of the 3-4 players at each table that decide CALLING off their stack with a 3 outter is great play?

I am convinced the reason No Limit is so popular is this...

NL PLAYER : "Hey I was at the casino playing poker the other night."

FRIEND : "Really??? what were you playing? Video poker?"

NL PLAYER : "Nope, I was playing No Limit hold em"

FRIEND : "What's that?"

NL PLAYER : "That's what they play on ESPN"

FRIEND : " WOW, you must be a really good player. You are my hero!!!"

I'm not entirely sure why having one's game of choice be insulted leads us to post silly replies. Showing that there are big fish in one type of game does nothing to prove the relative complexity of that game to any other game. I am a limit player, but I trust that for each guy who will check call 3 streets with Q-high in FL, theres a guy who will stack off with no pair, no draw in NL.

I am convinced that the reason No Limit is so popular is similar to the reasons that other forms of poker/gambling are popular.

Where in the posts you quoted did anyone say LHE is more complex? Nobody did because it's not. It's painfully clear they were loling at this typical NL--> LHE fish speak:

I'm sure there are ignorant limit players who moan about NL being an "unskilled shovefest" or whatever but it is nowhere near to the same frequency or degree. Many NL players have the nerve "pull a cyberlisk" and openly mock the LHE game when at the table (what limit player does this when playing NL?) It is extremely ignorant, arrogant, and condescending; but who is going to say anything when they're unwittingly holding up a sign that says "I suck at this game" while telling everyone why they're so much smarter than you.

Grunch, because I haven't finished reading the thread, if you are playing for the rush, you are playing for the wrong reason.

Most NL games have a minimum and maximum amount you can buy in for so you can only be that deep to start. In a limit game, they have a minimum amount, but no maximum, so players can buy in for as much as they like, making the game much deeper.

Well I tried.

I was talking about the game in general, not the abundance of bad players that play it.

I find NLHE to be painfully slow and boring. It is so annoying that it is accepted that people can tank for every decision imaginable and ****** donks fake tank every fold -- as if live poker wasn't already slow enough. Also, I don't like the idea that you can play great and grind your way up for hours only to busto with a cooler or ridiculous beat. I can see why donks would have more fun with nlhe than limit though as the crowd tends to be more sociable and less degen by and large.

Simple, but inaccurate IMO. Pot limit omaha is clearly a deeper strategic game than no limit omaha for example, yet it has a more restrictive betting structure. Limiting the option to shove and/or grossly overbet the pot takes away the ability of a player to avoid playing later streets. This makes the game deeper strategically.

LOL @ you can't bluff in limit.

Good luck with that plan, you'll need it since by extension you can also never fold which means you're playing bingo.

What's the right reason, sensei?

I'll never be a pro golfer yet I play it for fun. I suck pretty bad but the rush of going on a hot streak in golf is a lot of fun for me.

I also play poker for fun. I'm passably decent at small stakes to be a marginal winner, but I know now that I'll never make any real money at the game. If I want to make money I go out and do business.

I have predominatly been a NL player for 5yrs and had been know to say the usually about limit (cant protect ur hand, blah, blah)until I sat 4/8. Got crushed so I did alot of research and kept working on it. Know that I know how to play limit I love it and find it very profitable. If there were bigger regular games here (10/20, 15/30 ect) I would make the transition completely. I also think that learning limit has helped improve my NL game.

For those who hate limit games I think they should give it a real effort (if they have the time) its a whole different world that can help you be a better rounded player.

So in answer to the Posters question, I dont think NL players are better at all forms of poker conisdering most other forms are Limit variations anyway.

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.