Interesting Article - Limit vs No Limit Cash Poker (1 Viewer)

[Old State]

When I started playing poker Limit was all anyone played for cash. Even when tournament poker started to become popular on TV in 2002 it took a while for casinos to spread NL cash games. It took at least a year and a half for the Borgata to offer it after they opened. Maybe by 2004 or 2005...I forget.

For several years up until 2005 I had a weekly $2-4 or $3-6 Limit holdem game where I often needed two tables to accommodate the crowd. When no Limit was offered at Borgata (the casino most of us played) it seemed to be endorsement and they all wanted to switch. I was nervous that our game would dry up because the the monetary swings of NL, but they insisted it wouldn't. Well it did. We went from a packed house once a week to maybe a monthly or every other month game. Several player disapeared all together from out group.

I find the cycle interesting. Poker was originally a NL cash game. But for these reasons casinos stopped offering it and Limit became the norm by the 1960's. I personally love Limit holdem and think it takes not just skill but displine. I would love to see it become popular again but I think there it too much machismo with NL.


http://www.nolandalla.com/mason-malmuth-limit-vs-no-limit-holdem/

 

[Jambine]

got to agree. I miss being able to go into a local casino and find a structured limit game. Everyone seems to think they get better action & more money in NL. I miss punishing people for lack of patience and throwing all that dead money into a pot they should have folded on the deal

 

[Old State]

got to agree. I miss being able to go into a local casino and find a structured limit game. Everyone seems to think they get better action & more money in NL. I miss punishing people for lack of patience and throwing all that dead money into a pot they should have folded on the deal

The check raise was potent.

The game limits the luck factor as well. Bad player still lose but over the course of the night....not all of it in one hand. Thus they are more likely to come back. Conversely it limits their payoff when they do get lucky and suck out.

Unless things have change recently, the biggest cash games play by the top professionals are Limit games. "

"The Professor, The Banker, And The Suicide King" was about the biggest cash game ever and it was Limit

 

[Mental Nomad]

Skill at limit requires more subtlety; a lot of it relies on identifying a thin edge and pushing it for a profits, or identifying a thin disadvantage, and getting out of the way (or manipulating the table, as in making a free card play.)

Skill at no-limit doesn't focus so much on thin edges; it's more about the broad strokes. Also, bluffing becomes a dramatically bigger factor.

Limit used to appeal a lot more to casual players who enjoy the game; no-limit appealed to gamblers, and to people drawn to the "big bluffer" game.

I think one of the key things, here, is that most people don't intuitively understand the difference in the size of no-limit versus limit games.

A $2/$4 Limit game (which has $2 bets on the deal/flop and $4 bets on the turn/river) will have blinds of $1/$2... but will play much smaller than a $1/$2 No-Limit game which also has blinds of $1/$2. The comparable No-Limit game is no more than 50c/$1 NL game, or often, a 25c/50c NL game.

Yet there are people who would never dare to set down at a $5/$10 limit game, who happily plop down at a $1/$2 NL game and think it's a much smaller game.

This past weekend, I played $1/$2 NL, and was in a three-way pot for $255 (NUT FLUSH, YEAH!). Mine was hardly the only pot that size, that night. The variance when you put up $255 on one hand is huge, and the reason it was only $255 was because that was all I had in front of me.

If I were playing a $10/$20 limit game, what's the most I could possibly bet into a three-way pot? Assuming every street is capped, the max possible amount I could bet on a such a hand is $240. ($40 on the deal, $40 on the flop, $80 on the turn, $80 on the river.) The MAX possible, even if I had $2000 in chips in front of me, is $240. Yet, at $1/$2 NL, I actually bet $255 recently, and $230 of that was on the turn ($5 pre, $15 on the flop, raise/call-all-in on the turn).

There's one big thing I think the article misses, though, and that's this: to a lot of players, the huge variance is a main lure of poker. And unskilled player will lose over time, sure, but an unskilled player can also get way ahead with some luck. That variance is a gamble, but it's also a lot of fun, if that's what you're into. And an unskilled player probably has a better shot of getting way ahead at no-limit than they do at limit. And that experience is an unforgettable thrill, and keeps them coming back. It's also why people play all the rest of the games in the house!

Likewise for the "bully" player, or the player who loves to "stand up to the bully." Whether they're pushing people over, or standing up to the bully, some players live for the machismo of pulling that off. Same for the person who wants to be a "big bluffer," versus the person who lives to call down bluffs. These are experiences that are not like what happens in any other game... and these experiences are much more amplified in NL than in Limit.

 

[stepup]

The first games I ever played at a casino were in 2006 and I played in a 4/8 limit game at the Beau Rivage and the reasons you guys have given are why I sat down. I got sick of donating on the table games and had played a little poker before so I went and played in the limit games because I didn't have the balls to play NL. I will still sit at a limit game when I am at a casino and they have it because I enjoy it more and I feel that it is easier to get value out of a good hand. People will call 8.00 all the way to the river with shit when they know they can't get there whole stack called into question on the next card. It makes the decision to chase that inside straight with an over card out there when they know that the most it is gonna cost them to see the turn is 8 bucks. It changes the entire dynamic. I really do enjoy it more.

 

[Old State]

Good points. I agree that NL definitely attracts the "gambler" type and I have a lot of those in my group.

I do feel $4-8 may be the closer equivalent to $1-2NL in that you need to cash in a similar amount to "play right".

While NL will definitely have the potential for larger pots, there are often pots that are very small and get checked down. In the course of the night, I would bet the average pot size of a $4/8 Limit game may be higher than the AVERAGE pot size of a $1/2NL.

 

[trever]

Limit - weak players are 100 percent guaranteed to lose all their money, bit by bit

No limit - weak players are 90 percent guaranteed to lose all their money, probably in big chunks.

 

[TheBigTater]

As a Limit player at heart I would love to see it make a comeback in the casinos. But I fear that grinding the Limit cash games in the casino against the rake does not have much appeal for this generation of action loving players. Limit poker is a great game for the home player/game especially those that choose to run games sans rake.

I personally don't enjoy the high variance of a NL cash game as much as I did in my youth. Don't hate it, just don't enjoy it as much anymore. My bankroll (and my constitution) just isn't built to take the wild swings, especially as I've gotten older. When I want to play I prefer to not have to risk my stack inside of the first 5 minutes of sitting down. Poker is more of a social game for me and I want to be able to sit down and play for a few hours. Nothing against those who like to risk/gamble it all on a single decision at NL. I'll play NL when there aren't any Limit games available and I can hold my own, it's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I do feel $4-8 may be the closer equivalent to $1-2NL in that you need to cash in a similar amount to "play right".

We may disagree on "playing right," but I can sit down at $4/$8 Limit with $100 and play any hand any way, save a heads-up raising war. Four capped rounds would be a max of $96 in bets.

At $1/$2 NL, I want at least 100 big blinds to be playing right. Below that, I want to tighten up the speculative & long-shot limping. So that's $200. And that $200 can easily go away. This past weekend, the second hand I played was KK that ran into AA in the big blind, flopping a rags board. I raised pre, they played slow... I half-potted all the way to the rag river, betting $20, then $40, then $80, getting called all the way, and most of my buy-in, right there. Down $160 plus the preflop action, which I can't exactly recall.

At a $4/$8 limit table, if I bring three reloads with me, or $400, I'm pretty confident I won't bust out. At that $1/$2 NL table, if I only bring $400 with me, I stand pretty high odds of busting out. I'd bring at least $800 with me.

While NL will definitely have the potential for larger pots, there are often pots that are very small and get checked down. In the course of the night, I would bet the average pot size of a $4/8 Limit game may be higher than the AVERAGE pot size of a $1/2NL.

Hard for me to have a read on this... much depends on the place and the players. I'm not sure whether you'd be right or wrong, but you'd need to compare a similar set of players at both games, and that doesn't happen IRL.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Poker is more of a social game for me and I want to be able to sit down and play for a few hours.

I agree, entirely... but that's why I host 25c NL games. It's the game people want, but at stakes where my friends and I can rebuy without great concern.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Having only played NL & PL games for the first 15 years of my poker life it took me a while to find my way to Limit games.

While I don't want to play only Limit Hold'em all night I love mixed Limit games! They are great for trying new games and getting new players to try them as well. Nothing kills trying a new game faster than 1/2 the table going bust in the first orbit of PLO8! Have seen it happen multiple times, even in the casino.

I agree completely that limit is more social. A lot more talking happens at the table than NL. Players don't seem to get as angry when they lose a huge pot as they do in NL too since they didn't put their whole stack in the pot.

The biggest draw back to limit in the casino around here is that $4/8 is the only game that goes on a regular basis and it impossible to beat with the rake.

For rake free home games $4/8 is a great transition for the average $1/2NL player.

If there was a $10/20 game I would play it.

 

[Old State]

Over the few months I have been getting my old cash game crew together again. We have had only three $1/2NL games about 8 hours each. There was a a lot of excitement for the first one because we hadn't played in a while. 10 players and almost 5k in the cash box at the end of the night. I allowed $300 buyin ....because that's what Borgata does. Only 3 people were up that game, one winning $1200.

We have played 2 more times with around 8 people and 4K in the box but I haven't gotten a request for the next game yet. 15 years ago we were playing Limit weekly. Many, including myself, are married with kids but I don't think that's the reason. Its because several are down $600 to $1500 in three games of $1/2nl. And not all because of bad or loose play. Lots of trips losing to straights or trips filling up in the river against straight and flushes. The kind of hands you don't lose your whole stack to in Limit .

 

[Old State]

I agree, entirely... but that's why I host 25c NL games. It's the game people want, but at stakes where my friends and I can rebuy without great concern.

Here is my dilemma; they won't play that low. I have been playing small stakes mini tournaments with the neighbors but I do it only for the social aspect and to scratch my poker itch. It's a horrible way to play because what do the people who bust out do? I'm trying to convince that group that a $.25/.50 NL game s the better option for people who only want to play with $20-$40

 

[Rhodeman77]

@Old State you may want to lower the max buy in to $200. You could change the blinds to $1/1 as well. Changing the blinds won't change the game much but the opening raise will now be $5 to $7 more often than $10 to $12 which will in turn make for slightly smaller flop bets etc.

But lowering the max to $200 will help a lot. Especially in those cooler situations. $600 being 3 buy-ins instead of 2 is a huge difference.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I'm trying to convince that group that a $.25/.50 NL game s the better option for people who only want to play with $20-$40

You mean 25c/25c. I'd not want to play 25/50 with as little as $40 for my buy-in, and if others are buying in for $20, the game sucks even more. I want 100 BB, minimum, to buy in.

I host a 12.5/25 game regularly. Most buy in for $40 or $50, a few buy in for $20 or $30.

The leader usually cashes out over $200.

You need to beg them to try it, and then educate them.

 

[Mental Nomad]

If they want to play $20-$40 for the night, I'd suggest $10 buy-ins and 5c/10c blinds (100 BB buyin.)

And teach them that betting pot is strong, half pot is moderate, and if they're not aware of the pot, they have to keep learning. They need to experience a real game.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Afterthought - at my 25c game, there's someone stacking and calling out the pot almost every time. I started doing it years ago, when helping a bunch of newbs learn to play. It helped them A LOT.

Now, I only do it when asked, but I just realized we do it on pretty much any non-obvious pot.

Training wheels.

 

[RowdyRawhide]

If I were playing a $10/$20 limit game, what's the most I could possibly bet into a three-way pot? Assuming every street is capped, the max possible amount I could bet on a such a hand is $240. ($40 on the deal, $40 on the flop, $80 on the turn, $80 on the river.) The MAX possible, even if I had $2000 in chips in front of me, is $240. Yet, at $1/$2 NL, I actually bet $255 recently, and $230 of that was on the turn ($5 pre, $15 on the flop, raise/call-all-in on the .

You are assuming everyone is only calling on each street and there are no raises. I'm not familiar with 10/20 capped structure, and I don't think I've ever played in a capped game now that I think about it, but last time playing limit in a casino I won a $158 pot in a 2/4 game (definitley not the norm but id day $30-40 pots are) so i would assume 10/20 game pots would be 3.5-4 times these, given what I assume would be slightly tighter play.

EDIT. nevermind this garble I re read your post and your were in for $255 not won $255 which is what read the first time

 

[Mental Nomad]

You are assuming everyone is only calling on each street and there are no raises.

No, I said there were the (maximum) three raises on every street. "Capped" means there was a fourth raise. In a heads-up pot, raises are uncapped, but in a multi-way pot, there is always a cap (to protect people from pot slamming and other kinds of collusion.)

I don't think I've ever played in a capped game now that I think about it

Nearly every limit game has a cap of three raises per round of betting. On occasion, it's four raises. I've never heard of an uncapped game.

now that I think about it, but last time playing limit in a casino I won a $158 pot in a 2/4 game

But how much money did you bet into that pot?

In 2/4 , if ever street is capped (has three raises), you would have bet:

Pre-Flop: 4 x $2 = $8
Flop: 4 x $2 = $8
Turn: 4 x $4 = $16
River: 4 x $4 = $16

$8 + $8 + $16 + $16 = $48.

The most you can put into a multi-way pot at $2/$4 is $48. If you won a $158 pot, it was either massively multi-way (lost of people calling lots of raises to the river)...

Or else it was heads-up, and you and some 2nd-best hand had a bout of "Bet, raise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise, reraise,...."

EDIT. nevermind this garble I re read your post and your were in for $255 not won $255 which is what read the first time

EDIT: Just saw this part. <derp>

 

[Jambine]

Skill at limit requires more subtlety; a lot of it relies on identifying a thin edge and pushing it for a profits, or identifying a thin disadvantage, and getting out of the way (or manipulating the table, as in making a free card play.)

Skill at no-limit doesn't focus so much on thin edges; it's more about the broad strokes. Also, bluffing becomes a dramatically bigger factor.

Limit used to appeal a lot more to casual players who enjoy the game; no-limit appealed to gamblers, and to people drawn to the "big bluffer" game.

I think one of the key things, here, is that most people don't intuitively understand the difference in the size of no-limit versus limit games.......

All too true. NL requires more skill, structured requires more patience and (I believe) better reads.
To paraphrase the article referenced in the OP: NL is simultaneously responsible for the explosion in poker popularity in the early 2000's, and the recent decline in popularity.

 

[Old State]

If they want to play $20-$40 for the night, I'd suggest $10 buy-ins and 5c/10c blinds (100 BB buyin.)

And teach them that betting pot is strong, half pot is moderate, and if they're not aware of the pot, they have to keep learning. They need to experience a real game.

I've found that the buyin regulates the betting. It's not "correct poker" but if us what it is. I've played $.25/.50NL for hours with my Father in law and his friends with $20 buyins. Most reload once or twice. They are anything but poker players and like to play almost every hand. It's technically NL but it's rare anyone bets or raises more than $3-4. I play with them and crush the game..... slowly. I like they don't understand betting the pot or half pot because it allows me to play a lot of hands and keeps the pot active. I win simply by betting and raising when I flop a hand or strong draw and folding when I don't. It's really more of a variable Limit game in practice (n) :thumbsdown:

I have tried $.25-50 with the neighbors once or twice after our little tourneys and people usually cash in for $20 with some reloading for another $40. But these were short games as the night was ending.

Now, if they would play Limit I think I could get them into a $.50-1 Limit game. Maybe I will introduce as a mixed game though Ive never done that. 7 card stud was my first straight poker game but I can't even remember how to bet it (anti, bring in)! Haven't played that in 16 years.

As for equal blinds, I never heard of such a thing until I joined this forum and havent considered it yet

 

[Mental Nomad]

7 card stud was my first straight poker game but I can't even remember how to bet it (anti, bring in)! Haven't played that in 16 years.

Classic spread-limit game. I dealt a lot of spread-limit Seven Stud with $1-$5 betting.

25c ante bet, deal 2 down and 1 up, lowest card showing brings it in with at least a $1 forced bet. Others call or raise by as much as $5; on every round, min bet/raise is $1, max is $5. (Raises must be equal to or greater than the prior bet/raise on that round.)

 

[Mental Nomad]

I win simply by betting and raising when I flop a hand or strong draw and folding when I don't. It's really more of a variable Limit game in practice (n) :thumbsdown:

Sounds like they play limit while they let you play no-limit.

 

[Old State]

Sounds like they play limit while they let you play no-limit.

Now you say that, yes, that's what they do. It's great.

 

[pltrgyst]

Afterthought - at my 25c game, there's someone stacking and calling out the pot almost every time. I started doing it years ago, when helping a bunch of newbs learn to play. It helped them A LOT.
Now, I only do it when asked, but I just realized we do it on pretty much any non-obvious pot.

In a NL game?

I've never played NL any place where you could get a pot count. Huh.

 

[rjbf65]

My first casino visits in 2004-2005 range would have either 3-6 Limit, 1-2 NL or 2-5 NL. I remember really disliking the Limit game. I was probably one of those impatient players at the time that usually lost money at it. The Limit tables gradually disappeared and I haven't played it in 10+ years now. I'd love to give it a try in a mixed game sometime.

 

[Old State]

A lot of the reason people disliked Limit holdem was because of how loose it was...aka "no foldem holdem". People hated seeing their raise called by 5 people only to get their aces cracked.

I think there are more savvy players now so that could be less of an issue...or people will be quicker to realize they need to change their strategy for Limit.

I also think the perception that NL requires way more skill is a bit over blown or at least negated by how it amplifies the luck factor. Thats what many in my crew liked about NL. They could play crappy all night and get lucky and win a monster pot to make up for it in one fell swoop. NL can be be more catastrophic to a bad player but rewards luck exponentially more than Limit. When those guys got down in our old Limit game they usually couldn't recover.

The big money in NL usually comes from someone having second best hand. The money in Limit comes more from missed draws and people seeing too many flops.

 

[duecesneverloses]

In a NL game?

I've never played NL any place where you could get a pot count. Huh.

Ya I have asked a multiple casino's that won't even spread a pot let alone tell me whats in the pot. In my opinion I think telling someone else what is in the pot shouldn't be legal. The whole point of poker is a game of incomplete information. I think each player should have to gain this information by acquiring it themselves. Teach a man to count the pot he will count the pot for the rest of his life If they cant count I don't think poker is the game for them. Also If its a friendly home game I get it but I am too competitive to be giving free info like this out.

 

[churlbut18]

As a Limit player at heart I would love to see it make a comeback in the casinos. But I fear that grinding the Limit cash games in the casino against the rake does not have much appeal for this generation of action loving players. Limit poker is a great game for the home player/game especially those that choose to run games sans rake.

I personally don't enjoy the high variance of a NL cash game as much as I did in my youth. Don't hate it, just don't enjoy it as much anymore. My bankroll (and my constitution) just isn't built to take the wild swings, especially as I've gotten older. When I want to play I prefer to not have to risk my stack inside of the first 5 minutes of sitting down. Poker is more of a social game for me and I want to be able to sit down and play for a few hours. Nothing against those who like to risk/gamble it all on a single decision at NL. I'll play NL when there aren't any Limit games available and I can hold my own, it's just not my cup of tea.

Well said, and I share this same perspective.

I don't enjoy the fact that my full stack is at risk on every hand. When I get a chance to play poker, I want to be able to play for a while without reaching deep into my pockets. And I don't care much for the machismo that comes with NL either.

I enjoy the more casual grind with the limit game, playing for hours and hours with more gradual swings. For me, the rush comes from looking at my hole cards for the first time, seeing the flop, maybe chasing a hand or two I shouldn't be and catching it, rather than making a big bluff, pushing all in, or seeking out the big bluff.

And I guess I'm lucky that Foxwoods has such a large poker room and spreads $2/$4 and $4/$8 Limit around the clock.

 

[Old State]

I don't necessarily dislike "risking my stack" but more specifically risking it over a bad beat.

Also, at the end of a session, those who done well usually can trace 80% of their winnings to just one or two hands. To me there is far too much luck involved in NL. And when you play with a group of similar and skilled players (my situation) that have all played together for years....it's almost all luck...or who is drunk, tired, distracted by a game in the tv, etc.