My normal game is low/mid limit (8/16 up to 20/40). I am a net winner over the last few years running at ~$40/hr averaged between all games. Some nights its a couple of racks up and other nights it can be a couple of racks down. I know my leaks and where I am weak but over the long run, I hold my own.

Lately I have been running cold which has let to playing bad which leads to chasing in bad spots and loosing more. I had gone beyond variance and into a bad spiral of self fulfilling doom.

I took a week off and then decided to take a break from limit and try NL to train few different brain muscles and I am glad I did. Playing 2/3 and 3/5 was just break I needed.

It could have been the players- there was a full mix of good/complex to just plain awful but the game lost a whole dimension of complexity. It wasn't quite chess vs checkers but in short, it was a much easier game.

Comparing the two, limit feels like you had to play all streets and plan 2-3 moves ahead to make the most of whatever advantage you have. NL felt like the die was cast on the flop and the turn and river play was much more straight forward. I know this oversimplifies it, but the threat of stacking off vs losing 2-3 big bets polarizes the post flop decision process.

If you are a limit player, it wouldn't hurt to mix it up- you might be surprised how well you hold up. If you are NL player who likes to rag on us limit players playing the game with training wheels, you would be amazed at how hard we work for the small edges in each hand.

My exit question is did I run hot because I was fresh, or is my experience common when going from limit to NL?

I agree that diversifying is a good way to gain a better understanding of how to play well and also makes it easier picking up new variants as well.

How exactly do you expecet readers of a forum to answer that question?

I realize no one can speak specifically to my sessions. I was wondering if they were a fluke or was this a common experience and I am late to the game.

What I was really trying to ask is:
How would other small/mid stakes limit players describe playing NL as compared to their normal games?

Everybody feels like a genius at a new game if he starts off winning. NL is probably an easier game to play vs complete fish than LHE but in my experience it's not a huge difference.

It's quite likely you experienced the favorable side of variance and that made it feel even easier than it really was. NL is a lot more frustrating and boring imo when you run bad than LHE is, especially live FR.

maybe the problem with limit is u have no or little edge,u dont make much and mistakes dont snowball like they do in no limit,and please dont tell me no limit is easier lol,i can boot up pokerstars right now and go laugh at the fish donking around in fixed limit thinking they are "playing" poker pressing that call button like a pez dispenser.and who says limit poker isnt gg on the flop,people are calling ur puny bet on the turn and river no matter what.know whats frustrating?having to fold a big pot on the turn or river when u know ur beaten by fish.nothing hurts more than having to throw a large chunk of ur money away because its the right thing to do.

This entire post mocks itself.

any good poker player knows that the game is all about folding.

u mad?

Nope, I'm cool.
I respect your opinion that NL is the more challenging game.
I play both and personally think live NL is easier than LHE, but prefer to play LHE because I simply have more fun at it.


I simply pointed out that your post has many contradictions.

Let's go line by line:
"maybe the problem with limit is u have no or little edge,u dont make much and mistakes dont snowball like they do in no limit,and please dont tell me no limit is easier lol"
If you have "no or little edge" in limit, then how can NL be the more difficult of the two?

"i can boot up pokerstars right now and go laugh at the fish donking around in fixed limit thinking they are "playing" poker pressing that call button like a pez dispenser."
If this is the case, wouldn't we have a huge advantage in limit? Again, this contradicts your opening line of "no to little edge".

"and who says limit poker isnt gg on the flop,people are calling ur puny bet on the turn and river no matter what."
This certainly does make it seem like limit is the easier of the two games. So again, how is there "no to little edge".

"know whats frustrating?having to fold a big pot on the turn or river when u know ur beaten by fish.nothing hurts more than having to throw a large chunk of ur money away because its the right thing to do"
So you know you're making the correct play and are angry at the fish for providing enough information to do so? I'd enjoy any poker where this is the case.

well according to ur logic,if u have little or no edge in fixed limit it would work against ur opponent too since they cant play postflop effectively against you.not only ur mistakes are marginalized and ur mistakes sometimes become accidentally correct because ur getting the right odds.

donking around doesnt necessary means u have a huge edge over fish,it could be like super turbos where even if the fish are really bad u only have a slim edge since theres much less postflop decisions a fish has to make.

and who likes folding big pots when they are beaten?so what if its the correct play?everyone gets angry when fish gets lucky,i get pissed at the fish because he has my money,how can u feel this emotional aspect of the game when the most u lose is what 5 or 6bbs?

Right. Which is why I confirm the increased challenge of LHE to squeeze out an edge.

I agree the Rush of facing or laying a single bet that is 100+bb is definitely not something you feel in LHE.
However, the pots are consistently larger at comparable stakes in LHE. So the rush comes more from pulling in the more common 200+ pots in a 10/20 LHE game, then the occasional 400+ pot in 1-2NL. (Yea I know 10/20LHE plays slightly higher than 1-2NL, but it's just a point of reference.)

It's a matter of preference, which rush you prefer.

"Vent alert" - The speed of NL drives me crazy, since I grew up on limit and am used to seeing 30 hands an hour. At NL I need to wait 5 minutes for some 22 yr old to fold his 4-high and I'm lucky to squeeze 15 hands of any worth into an hour.

I am NLplayer and I do rag on limit players like you! I am amazed at how hard you work not to blow your brains out playing that game!

Weird cause I tried the game for the fiirst time this morning and found that it was pretty easy to win compared to some of my regular NL sessions. But I did run good and got bored very quickly so thats a sign its not a good game for me.

You probably ran hot a little but also havent been mind****ed by the game yet haha, it takes a lot more in the long run to win with full open play than in mathmatically solved limit games, fact. The variance in decisions makes it harder to master.

Both games are easy to play when you run good. Both games are hard to play when you run bad. Both games are really hard to play well (really well).

LHE tends to put you into a lot more marginal spots where the key is to try to squeeze out every tiny edge possible. NL tends to allow you to focus more on the big decisions and can feel simpler at times, but it often prevents you from taking "safe" calldown lines because the price you're paying when you're wrong is simply too big.

And LHE isn't solved. Not even close. Only NL players think that it is.

It will be solved before NL because it has a smaller gamespace. That doesn't mean it's any less challenging to play well simply because of how mathematical solving works. And even if it gets solved it won't necessarily make it easy for humans to play well.

Just look at backgammon. The game has been solved, but it's still extremely challenging to play well and impossible for a human to play perfectly.

I see

sorry for ranting but I wanted to add something:

LHE seems easier/boring to NL players because you can't really make huge mistakes if you have a clue how to play it. As long as you don't fold too much you're not gonna be a big dog. But conversely, your opponent can't make a huge mistake either. So you need to be extremely vigilant in every spot what decision offers the highest amount of EV possible. Only way to beat the rake and make a positive winrate is to squeeze out every drop of small EV that you can.

NL feels eaiser/boring to LHE players because way to often the right decision is to get away from the hand. You don't get to make as many decisions as you do as in LHE. And you don't really have to be too vigilant about always making the correct decision in the small pots because you can make up a lot of EV by waiting for the big mistakes by your opponent. But conversely, you can't just play a simplistic strategy like simply calling down too much and be relatively sure that at least you're not a huge dog.

i know this is kind of an old thread, but it caught my eye

this strikes me as such a strange way of looking at it. as a primarily NL player i would think almost oppositely: that having no choice in how much to bet polarizes the postflop decision process compared to being able to bet any possible amount to elicit any desired reaction. NL adds this entire dynamic that offers near infinite possibility in how one can approach a hand. not saying either one is more complicated than the other or that you're wrong and i'm right, it's just interesting how those who are proficient in one game view the other so differently

over a small sample all the little facets of the game don't always add up, but you can say the same about limit and its small edges. run good at either game and it'll seem easy to someone competent but unfamiliar with the game's intricacies. get stacked on coolers or beats 5 or 6 times over a small number of hands, especially deepstacked, and suddenly NL seems much less easy when you're left with the daunting task of grinding it all back

Come play some 5/10 FL on Stars, all sorts of fish there waiting for you...

I play B&M and am currently transitioning from 10/20 and 15/30 LHE to 1/2 & 2/5 NL. My perspective is probably a bit skewed since I took such a big step down in stakes, but here it is anyway.

I found it much easier to apply a mathematical edge to my LHE game, the human reads and even the betting pattern reads (a big part of my game) just didn't swing my rate significantly.

In NL I find I have to pay much more attention to the players and the history of the table, probably in large part because any given decision has such a greater risk to ruin.

Personally I think they're both great games, they play drastically different in my experience, and any one who plays either seriously would benefit drastically from learning the other one. As a random support for that claim, I find my LHE experience is hugely beneficial when I run into a super loose NL game but virtually useless at a tight NL game.

One unexpected observation I've found for my game is that tilting in LHE is much more costly than it is in NL.

I agree.

For me personally learning to play both has helped me learn the art of adjusting. Any game is profitable as long as you learn to adjust to the game conditions, be it the players, your relative position to the players at the table and the betting structure. For me learning more variants has made adapting easier since it prevents you from being too robotic.

ymmv

Have to say I play and like both but I find it odd when people say NL is an easier game. Things like pot control and hand ranges don't factor in as much for me when playing FL and to say you don't need to plan ahead on all streets in NL just seems insane to me.

In FL I'm forced to think about hand equity more and how it's affected on all streets since I often can't shut down the action prematurely. Showdowns are far more frequent. I tend to think more about my own hand there than polarizing the villain's hand range, since there's usually insufficient information to do that effectively (particularly in a HU game). There are even times in NL where I'm not thinking about my own hand at all but only how my hand appears to the villain and what he might be holding: in FL I'm rarely trying to pull off coordinated bluffs of that nature or leveling.

However, in NL one should be planning ahead anyway even for a routine C-bet. To say it's not required is extremely odd to me: that's usually what separates the good NL players from the rest (the rest tend to be more instinctive and make their decisions independently on every street which doesn't tell a consistent story). In FL I'm rarely playing a bluffcatcher: if I'm raising it's to maximize my own equity. Nevertheless, my stack is rarely at full vulnerability in a hand in FL so there are usually fewer tough decisions IMO: you never have to worry about your full stack being vulnerable in a very marginal situation unless you're playing a tournament/SNG with escalating blinds.

To me difficulty comes down to difficult decisions. Say I have a really good made hand but not the nuts or even second nuts. I'm facing a shove on the river. That's a very tough decision and that's what makes NL so hard for me: the number of times I get into very risky and dangerous but marginal situations. In fact, a lot of playing NL effectively comes down to avoiding marginal situations and tough choices for yourself but putting the opponent into marginal situations. In FL, I would be facing one fixed bet on the river with a good hand that I'm fairly sure but not certain beats the villain's range: insta-call for me. At the very least, I don't think NL or FL should be compared in terms of difficulty this way but I do think NL places a lot more tough decisions on the player, especially against good players that aren't going to stack off with you without some very tough decisions involved.

On the flip side, FL forces you to play consistently well. When I started, I didn't play so well and I was leaking (a slow but painful kind of death). In NL, you can still leak (not stealing/defending blinds) but those small wins/losses tend to be significantly outweighed by the big wins/losses at the more rare but critical moments in a game.

If I were to play a total novice, I'd much rather play them NL than FL though. If the opponent is making a lot more mistakes than you are, then NL allows you to really punish them and make those mistakes as costly for them as possible, so in that sense I agree that NL would be easier against a total novice than FL where your edge over other players isn't going to factor in as quickly: you can't maximize on your equity in a hand as you can in NL. If I were playing someone who's very experienced and possibly better than me though, I'd rather play them in FL for the same reasons.

FL is a ton of small decisions, vs the few big decisions you make in NL. The funny thing about the really "tough" decisions, often, is they don't matter that much because it's so close either way. Yes, the pot will be big and you'll win/lose a lot immediately, but over time they even out. If you make one big mistake or one great play, you'll reap the rewards more quickly than in FL, where it takes a while to realize the edge off your opponent. Because of this, the swings in FL are much more severe, from what I understand.

I also think it's more important for NL players to learn FL than vice versa. You gain a ton of turn and river experience and get to SD a lot, where most NL pots never get to a flop; so you'll get more experience putting people on ranges and making decisions based on that. You also need to be very fundamentally sound in FL; where you can have several small NL leaks, but make good big decisions and do well. That being said, there are certain elements in NL that do not appear in FL at all; like stack sizes and bet sizing.

I played some NL the other night, 6 tables of .25/.50 6 max. My game changed in a couple ways: I was c-betting the flop far less (96% in FL, to 58% in NL) and I was stealing and opening a lot more (47 % atts vs 65%) (31/25 vs 36/30) I'm not sure if these are correct adjustments, numerically, but everyone was playing way too tight imo and people really only seemed to play back with legitimate hands, making it easy to put people on a small, specific range of hands. After I got in a rhythm, it oddly didn't feel too different than FL. (I realize these stakes are small, and the game changes a lot as you go up)