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.

Some people, pros even, don't play no limit. Can't handle the swings.

this.
esp. considering my primary game is Triple Draw.

NL is popular because frankly it is an easier game to play and win at. A good player at limit wins about about 1BB/hr live. That means that if a player makes one bad call or bet per hour, their profit margin disappears. Yes, NL players can lose a stack. But many mistakes can be rectified by aggression. You just can't do that in limit.

That said, stud is even more difficult a game. You've got to remember cards that have been eliminated to recalculate your odds.

I dunno about all that.

I believe it.... IMO, NLHE is easier to make more money vs. LHE.

in Barry Greenstein's Ace in the River, Barry claimed to win just a wee bit over 50% of his sessions in LHE, while making about 75% of his NLHE sessions.

in general the majority of the worlds best players play NL because at this time in poker history that is where the most money is. I have no special affinity for nlhe and if lowball became the big thing i would be playing that.

the fish at NL simply lose more and lose faster than the fish at limit. both games are tough for the pro and require a lot of skill and self control. I worry a little about limit players who have never left the limit game at any time through the boom...they lost sooooooooooooooo much money they might be lacking some skills necessary to be a well rounded player in all games...then again maybe money was not their sole motivation which is cool, i give up a lot of money by not playing nights, after a certain point money not only isnt everything, it really isnt anything.

NL has to be a tougher form of poker than LHE - clearly you have a number of options to make in a specific hand, while in NL your options are limitless. Id imagine with limit you cant make as many mistakes as you can in NL and still be a winner - losing a BB in limit is much worse then spewing off some blinds in NL.

Limit is stupid. You only have 3 choices compared to NL where the choices have no limits!!! Obviously NL is a far more complicated game which takes far more intelligence to master. Playing the turn and river is vastly over-rated.

Thank you for pointing out the flawed assumption in the OP. I have met zero NLHE players who think they can play Stud hilo better than everyone else. There are probably a few deluded players who think they are the best at all forms of poker. But they aren't found in nlhe any more frequently than in limit games.

wait you get to do something in NL besides raise, call, or fold?

In NL you have to calculate the size of the pot and the size of the bet vs. your opponent's range and your holdings. You don't have to do that in lhe because it is just one more bet.

Limit Poker. You're doing it wrong.

Of course you have to calculate pot odds in limit poker, even for one more bet. This discussion has some incredible swings of logic. It's pretty much the NL guys not understanding limit poker and the limit guys not being able to articulate the strategic differences.

I was merely pointing out that the 3 base options one has in limit are the same 3 options that one has in NL. The supposed "complexities" you are referencing arent very complicated at all. Anyone with a 2nd grade education could learn them. Ofc you have to calculate pot odds and assign ranges in lhe and its not always just one bet. What the fish in this thread are not understanding is that poker is poker. The best players in any game understand that game theory is at the heart of every poker decision. The fundamentals can be different from one game to the next, but understanding opponent tendencies is what wins the money in every game. That is why you never hear expert players having this argument, bc its a pointless one to have.

+1 /close thread, end argument.

I think this is very well said - Thanks!

I supported my family for a year playing $20/40 LHE while unemployed - to the person who says you cannot bluff, I just have to say that you might want to do a little reading and re-evaluate that statement. I have been playing for many, many years and some of the BEST players I have sat down with are mid to high level LHE players - by far.

I currently play $2-5 NLHE (not for a living - got a job now). I find there are more fish at this level than at any other level in live poker (just my opinion). There just aren't as many players playing medium stakes limit where I live.

In my opinion - once you pass the $5/10 barrier in LHE, then play/skill level goes up dramatically. The decisions that must be made at the middle to higher Limit Levels are just as complex and reads on opponents are just as critical as NLHE. I find that in NLHE, unless faced by a terrific pro, a little time at the table can get all the information that is required, allowing you to make your reads and tailor your game to the particular table/villains, where in LHE in my experience, at the higher levels, it is much more difficult to do that as most of the players are semi-pros/pros - at least that was my experience due to the fact that there just aren't as many venues to play mid to high level LHE.

It was quite a grind for me at $20/40 LHE trying to eke out a living, but I was able to do it due to patience, good reads and making sure to stay disciplined. NLHE fish and lower level players don't do well at LHE due to the lack of discipline. Thank GOD Parx opened up - now I can get my $15/30 limit action all the time - super game over there!!

Just my $.02