• This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Why I don’t love limit poker (1 Viewer)

BGinGA said:
If you're not bluffing when playing limit poker, you're not doing it right.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure any bluff would be very effective at the limits we were playing. I suppose every now and then but when the max bet/raise was $6 bucks there were plenty of “well fuck it” calls made all night.
Also we did not wear masks @bonesnjnts .
 
WedgeRock said:
Was it also capped pre? I can't imagine JT calling 4 bets pre.
Click to expand...
Daniel Negreanu recently said that he hoped to some day be rich enough that he would never have to fold JT suited, pre.
It's a hand that people like.
 
WedgeRock said:
Was it also capped pre? I can't imagine JT calling 4 bets pre.
Click to expand...
JT 3-bet from the button after UTG initially raised. SB capped, BB called 3 bets with AA, while KK called 2 bets in UTG and JT called 1 bet on the button, closing the action.

Flop, Turn, and River all went bet-raise-reraise-cap in order from SB to Button.

Playing 4/8 nine-handed, second hand of the night. Nobody believed anybody.
 
BGinGA said:
JT 3-bet from the button after UTG initially raised. SB capped, BB called 3 bets with AA, while KK called 2 bets in UTG and JT called 1 bet on the button, closing the action.

Flop, Turn, and River all went bet-raise-reraise-cap in order from SB to Button.

Playing 4/8 nine-handed, second hand of the night. Nobody believed anybody.
Click to expand...
Im pretty surprised QQ raised turn and JT raised river
 
upNdown said:
Daniel Negreanu recently said that he hoped to some day be rich enough that he would never have to fold JT suited, pre.
It's a hand that people like.
Click to expand...

It’s my favorite hand for sure- and I’m pretty sure I’ve folded less than 5 times pre playing limit poker - mostly a 4/8 player but have played as high as 40/80
 
QQ was first to act on turn (and bet-called).

With no flush possible, JT is 5th nuts, only losing to pocket AA, KK, QQ, or 22. Saving one big bet vs possibly gaining three (or net +1 if chopped) is a trivial decision given the size of the pot.

edit: Okay, JT also loses to AQ, KQ, A2, K2, and Q2, so 10th nuts. Maybe just a river call (or a fold for super-nit), but that would have spoiled all the fun. :)
 
Last edited:
I am definitely not capping JT on the river, but maybe that's more an indictment of my play more than anything.

BGinGA said:
edit: Okay, JT also loses to AQ, KQ, A2, K2, and Q2, so 10th nuts. Maybe just a river call (or a fold for super-nit), but that would have spoiled all the fun. :)
Click to expand...

If the board is AKQ2Q, JT is still good against A2 and K2, both of which just make two pair. It loses to AA, KK, QQ, 22, AQ, KQ and Q2 (if no flushes are possible).

Again, with the action occurring, I can get away from JT once the board pairs. I can see how in-the-moment would change that, tho. It's easy to criticize in hindsight.
 
This thread just shows how many different reasons there are for playing poker. Some people play to gamble, some play just for fun, some play to make money and good decisions.

I'm in the 2nd/3rd group. I'm not playing to gamble. I'm playing to make optimal decisions and profit. Which to me is fun. I like both limit and NL, because in either case the challenge of making correct decisions is what I find fun.

I'll play just about any game, but PL circus games IMO are obviously favored by those that tend toward to gamble/fun side of the spectrum. They just like to see big pots and big swings. Making all the optimal decisions and profiting are of secondary concern to them most of the time from what I can tell.
 
Legend5555 said:
I'll play just about any game, but PL circus games IMO are obviously favored by those that tend toward to gamble/fun side of the spectrum. They just like to see big pots and big swings. Making all the optimal decisions and profiting are of secondary concern to them most of the time from what I can tell.
Click to expand...
PL circus games certainly attract action players that just want to gamble. But that makes them very attractive to people like me that don’t mind gambling and love to make correct decisions and win!
 
Hornet said:
PL circus games certainly attract action players that just want to gamble. But that makes them very attractive to people like me that don’t mind gambling and love to make correct decisions and win!
Click to expand...
Hence why I still play them. I'm just not a huge fan of these 5+ hole card flop games and super stud games designed to make big hands just run into each other constantly. Because of the highly multi way nature many of these games have, the correct strategy is far too often just wait to smash, then pot.
 
Limit poker is different from big bet poker. It has higher variance and lower win rates than big bet poker games.

It should not be surprising that the better, winning players often strongly prefer big bet poker. They win more money, faster with less risk. The flip side of the coin is the losing players lose more money, faster playing big bet poker and have less hope of booking a winning session.

Separate from the issues of win rate / variance, limit poker is surprisingly different from big bet poker. The strategies are different. The mental outlooks are different. The optimal strategies for limit poker are more narrow than is true for big bet poker. A skilled lag can turn any two cards into winners playing no limit. This not nearly so true playing limit poker.

In short, limit poker is "good" for weaker players. Limit poker is not "good" for winning players. It strongly constrains the wildest of LAGs, they can not effectively use the power of their aggression and risk taking to bully the table.

I find it interesting that there are plenty of bad players who would benefit from a limit betting structure that do not care for the lack of big bet action. They prefer the fun and excitement of no limit even if they lose more money faster.

Hosts need to pay attention to their players and spread what sorts of games make everyone the most happy. Once upon a time when I played poker, I hosted more limit games than big bet games, 30 limit games ( one ring circus mostly ) a year vs 24 no limit games ( hold'em). This was good for my games. Might not be good for other hosts / games.

Remember, we are playing to have fun -=- DrStrange
 
DrStrange said:
Limit poker is different from big bet poker. It has higher variance and lower win rates than big bet poker games.

It should not be surprising that the better, winning players often strongly prefer big bet poker. They win more money, faster with less risk. The flip side of the coin is the losing players lose more money, faster playing big bet poker and have less hope of booking a winning session.

Separate from the issues of win rate / variance, limit poker is surprisingly different from big bet poker. The strategies are different. The mental outlooks are different. The optimal strategies for limit poker are more narrow than is true for big bet poker. A skilled lag can turn any two cards into winners playing no limit. This not nearly so true playing limit poker.

In short, limit poker is "good" for weaker players. Limit poker is not "good" for winning players. It strongly constrains the wildest of LAGs, they can not effectively use the power of their aggression and risk taking to bully the table.

I find it interesting that there are plenty of bad players who would benefit from a limit betting structure that do not care for the lack of big bet action. They prefer the fun and excitement of no limit even if they lose more money faster.

Hosts need to pay attention to their players and spread what sorts of games make everyone the most happy. Once upon a time when I played poker, I hosted more limit games than big bet games, 30 limit games ( one ring circus mostly ) a year vs 24 no limit games ( hold'em). This was good for my games. Might not be good for other hosts / games.

Remember, we are playing to have fun -=- DrStrange
Click to expand...
Well said. These are many of the reasons why I host only limit games. Many of my players are friends and family who play more for social reasons and limit allows them to play for many hours without losing their shirt and having to buy in multiple times a night. We play a variety of mixed games, have a lot of fun, and the stakes ($2/$4 to $4/$8) are still high enough to create some adrenaline. We still have many sizable pots and raking in all of those chips is a lot of fun. Limit for me all the way.
 
Here's something interesting to me - people who started playing poker in the last 20 years, started playing NLHE, almost without exception. But people who learned poker prior to that, most likely learned playing limit games, probably NLHE, maybe stud. I wonder how peoples' perspectives on the games are colored by when they learned what.
 
upNdown said:
Here's something interesting to me - people who started playing poker in the last 20 years, started playing NLHE, almost without exception. But people who learned poker prior to that, most likely learned playing limit games, probably NLHE, maybe stud. I wonder how peoples' perspectives on the games are colored by when they learned what.
Click to expand...

I started out playing nlhe tourneys only about 15 years. Now i hate both
 
upNdown said:
Here's something interesting to me - people who started playing poker in the last 20 years, started playing NLHE, almost without exception. But people who learned poker prior to that, most likely learned playing limit games, probably NLHE, maybe stud. I wonder how peoples' perspectives on the games are colored by when they learned what.
Click to expand...
In learned NLHE first. But I was eager to learn all the variants. NLHE may still be my best game, and I'll never turn down playing it. But given the choice, I'd play limit mixed games over NLHE and PL mixed any day of the week.
 
Legend5555 said:
.... I like both limit and NL, because in either case the challenge of making correct decisions is what I find fun.

I'll play just about any game, but PL circus games IMO are obviously favored by those that tend toward to gamble/fun side of the spectrum. They just like to see big pots and big swings. Making all the optimal decisions and profiting are of secondary concern to them most of the time from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

This for me too. Plus PL just wastes so damned much time.

IMO, it would be a better game if you couldn't simply say "Pot", but had to state the amount of your bet or raise. And that amount could be challenged, with the proviso that if the stated amount is more than the pot, it becomes a mandatory call/check.
 
Last edited:
pltrgyst said:
IMO, it would be a better game if you couldn't simply say "Pot", but had to state the amount of their bet or raise. And that amount could be challenged, with the proviso that if the stated amount is more than the pot, it becomes a mandatory call/check.
Click to expand...

That is bloody brilliant good sir.
 
To piggyback on @DrStrange , limit does indeed have more variance due to the way the pot odds go. You will be seeing a lot more showdowns. Big bet games, especially NLHE have less variance because the odds offered get worse and force more folds less you lose your whole stack.

But once you start adding more and more cards to starting hands (Big O, Scarney, 6 card Omaha), the variance goes up considerably. More cards means hands run closer together in their strength. Couple that with pot limit and you have explosive pots. Some of this is mitigated by playing split pot.

The funny part of all of this is that as the number of cards you get goes up and you play split pot, the ratio of hands you should be playing compared to the number of possible starting hands actually goes down. Yet people play WAY more hands in these games than they should.

Like I said. I'll play this stuff. I just don't find the time investment to be worth it usually. Both from a profit angle and from a time per hand angle. Limit is (should be) very fast paced.
 
upNdown said:
Here's something interesting to me - people who started playing poker in the last 20 years, started playing NLHE, almost without exception. But people who learned poker prior to that, most likely learned playing limit games, probably NLHE, maybe stud. I wonder how peoples' perspectives on the games are colored by when they learned what.
Click to expand...
Started with holdem, I like it but it's not a favorite. I am a big fan of mixed limit games. I'd say I am more of a social player.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

TX_Golf_N_Poker
Tourney Short handed Turbo structure?
Replies
5
Views
205
Booshme
Booshme
E
Casino Party - Non Poker
Replies
3
Views
107
emunster18
E
NotRealNameNoSir
Live .50/.50 - Attractive Hero rolls his own.
Replies
7
Views
327
NotRealNameNoSir
NotRealNameNoSir
snowman7777
Thinking player that always loses in his home games.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Fabster
F
Spikeh
Good Quality Poker Chips in the UK
Replies
25
Views
512
JP1984
JP1984
Back
Top Bottom