no limit vs. limit which requires more skill & why?

[Jordan 1]

variance sometimes make me think this game is all about luck.

[mbreon 0]

You can play limit profitably without having ANY reads on your opponents.this is dumbNo' date=' you are a complete waste of skin if you can't play Limit Hold'em over a defined period of time and make a profit without needing to read your players.[/quote']You eeeeeeediot.

[Chiggleslap 0]

in limit u play Your cards while in NL you also have to figure out what your oppenent has

:sick:

[MLMarkland 0]

NL Hold 'em players aren't poker players and limit Hold 'em players aren't real men. Now it's settled.

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

No offense to NL players, but I've noticed a trend. I have never known a limit poker player to have any real trouble making the transition to NL. I'll use my friend as an example. He has been playing limit for 4 years. We do not have NL cash games in MN, but I used to play them alot online. He never played them and stuck exclusively to live and online limit hold'em. He moved to Cali. last year and plays 2-2-3 NL while he waits on his 12-24 game. He has absolutely crushed this game. Since his limit game is the biggest at his room he spends a great deal of time in this game waiting for a seat.He is a huge winner and says that the regulars in this game are horrible. In MN people cross the border into Wis. and dominate the NL games there. On the contrary most NL players have alot of trouble playing limit. They come to Canterbury visiting from another state or they play online and bitch and moan about "all the chasers" and how if this was NL they could bet these players out of the pot, etc. Meanwhile, they are getting their asses handed to them by limit players who can barely read the board. They tilt easily and have alot of trouble adjusting and playing well in multi-way pots. Not to say this is true of all NL players but just a trend I have noticed. Though I am primarily a limit player I can say that I have playe thousands of hours of NL and got into limit hold 'em about a year after playing NL for the first time in home games. I too had alot of trouble adjusting to the subtleties (sp) of limit.

[NickTheKid 0]

I don't think the question is which game is "easier", it's "which game takes more skill".Let's assume hypothetically he means "At an equally tough game which takes more skill?"Like another poster said, NL is an art, Limit is a science, and I wholeheartidly agree.Lots of idiots play NL because they watch Rounders or something and watch the WPT and think they are experts right away, so those statistics are a little biased guys.

[allinbluff35 0]

No offense to NL players, but I've noticed a trend. I have never known a limit poker player to have any real trouble making the transition to NL. I'll use my friend as an example. He has been playing limit for 4 years. We do not have NL cash games in MN, but I used to play them alot online. He never played them and stuck exclusively to live and online limit hold'em. He moved to Cali. last year and plays 2-2-3 NL while he waits on his 12-24 game. He has absolutely crushed this game. Since his limit game is the biggest at his room he spends a great deal of time in this game waiting for a seat.He is a huge winner and says that the regulars in this game are horrible. In MN people cross the border into Wis. and dominate the NL games there. On the contrary most NL players have alot of trouble playing limit. They come to Canterbury visiting from another state or they play online and censored and moan about "all the chasers" and how if this was NL they could bet these players out of the pot, etc. Meanwhile, they are getting their asses handed to them by limit players who can barely read the board. They tilt easily and have alot of trouble adjusting and playing well in multi-way pots. Not to say this is true of all NL players but just a trend I have noticed. Though I am primarily a limit player I can say that I have playe thousands of hours of NL and got into limit hold 'em about a year after playing NL for the first time in home games. I too had alot of trouble adjusting to the subtleties (sp) of limit.

where are you at in MN?

[Jelly-Filled Ace 1]

No need to use shit there, just practicing my newfound ability to curse.

Hot fucking damn.You are now poetry in motion.Cuss hard - Cuss often.

[lboarts 0]

in limit u play Your cards while in NL you also have to figure out what your oppenent has

wow!! just WOW

some people are stupid...how come the best no limit strat is to just push all in and hope u get called? b/c it takes no reads

If you're serious, then you're clueless. Who told you the best strat was to push all in and hope? And don't say Smash, because he never said the strat he's been trying to claim as his was the best, only that it is guaranteed to make a profit over 10,000 hands.I was taught young that the best way to learn is to keep your eyes and ears open and your mouth shut. Try it sometime.

[Drwnded 0]

in limit u play Your cards while in NL you also have to figure out what your oppenent has

wow!! just WOW

some people are stupid...how come the best no limit strat is to just push all in and hope u get called? b/c it takes no reads

Seriously dude, if I were you I'd consider not continuing to post this comment over and over, b/c it just shows how little you know about NLHE. IF this strat works at all, it only works for low limit NLHE, and not AT ALL for tournament NLHE or NLHE with bigger blinds/buy-ins. I'm skeptical about it even working at LL NLHE - really relies on having a bunch of really bad players calling your idiotic bets. I tried it on PP for a few hours the other night, pushed 10 times, and got called exactly zero. On party.NLHE appeals to adrenaline junkies with more testicles than brains who all think they're the second coming of Doyle. LHE appeals to sexually frustrated math geeks who'd rather play poker all day than finish their engineering thesis and get a job with GE. Seriously, they both take skill, but the really impressive skill is being able to play both at a winning level. All those guys you see on TV at the final tables of the NLHE tourney are also making a killing at the limit side games.

[PT0077 0]

Clearly, the answer is that TOURNAMENT poker requires by far the most skill. Why do you think ESPN broadcasts tournaments instead of ring games? BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE MORE SKILL! people are always saying that in any one hand, luck is a huge factor. and that's why tournaments require the most skill. because you have to play so many hands to win, so over that time, you have to have the most skill to win. y do you think Hachem is the best poker player in the world? BECAUSE HE WON THE WSOP MAIN EVENT. No question, he is obviously better than all those other "pros" who didn't win. to sum up: Tournament poker is by FAR the most best game, because it is 90% skill, unlike all these ring games where all you have to do is get lucky to win a hand. 2BB an hour? compare that to the 7.5 million Hachem won.Tournament > ring game.

Still waiting for an (sw) here. Either that, or you know nothing about poker.

[shpaget 0]

in limit u play Your cards while in NL you also have to figure out what your oppenent has

wow!! just WOW

some people are stupid...how come the best no limit strat is to just push all in and hope u get called? b/c it takes no reads

This would be because you have the IQ of a toenail. If that's the best no limit strategy, then please, by all means, join me in a game.I profit off guys like this all day long, and it's because I can READ them.No, the guy pushing all-in doesn't have to make the reads, but the guy making the call does.And did it ever cross your little brain that the guy pushing all-in has made a read too, and he's basing his all-in on that read?In NL you have one question to ask - "are you beat?"...and that depends on your ability to read....in Limit, you can ask that question, answer yes, and still justify a call of one bet based on the odds, and still profit.

[ek703 0]

What was that silly ass post about tournament poker? wowser

[shpaget 0]

wow, can you make any less sense and prove any more what I said about your statement being dumb. Try playing LHE above 15/30 for an extended period of time just playing your cards and not making any reads, you will come out a loser, I garuntee it. again, your statement is dumb and you just proved what I said even more. good try though

My statement proved your point based on what proof?Because you said so?I said you can profit at LHE playing just the cards and I demonstrated it, because I have done it.In response, you "claim", with no proof but your personal guarantee, that I won't make a profit playing 20/40 that way. Forgive me for not giving your guarantee the scientific weight you think it deserves. So, now my statement is only dumb for certain types of LHE games.First, my statement made no prerequisite of betting level, so even if you are right (and I will not make that concession without proof), my statement is still correct, because I have demonstrated it to be possible (if you don't believe me there's nothing I can do about that...that's your choice and prerogative - at the same time, if you want to believe I was lucky for 2 years that is also your prerogative) - yes, it was a terribly measly 3/6 game, for people like yourself that obviously don't consider it a game worth mentioning. It was the smallest available in this city 13 years ago, but at the same time, most nights it was the ONLY game available, so there were some good players. In fact, some were making a living at it (if you consider $200/day a living).btw - we may be arguing semantics.If I have 99 on the button, and UTG raises, MP 3 bets and CO caps, with absolutely no knowledge of the players, if I fold am I playing the cards/odds, or am I folding because of a read? I'm folding because I don't think my 9's are good in that situation, but would you say I've based that on a "read".

[GTKID 0]

I like nl because I can play some caaads. I wana see some flops and mix it up. I could care less what is more "skillful" in someones eyes, especially biased eyes.

[ek703 0]

I know that the poker world = Hold'em, but I think 7 card requires more skillz, PLO and PLO/8 are also pretty skill intensive, of course maybe this is because it seems easy beating the super donkeys in hold'em.

[SapphireTiger 0]

wow, can you make any less sense and prove any more what I said about your statement being dumb. Try playing LHE above 15/30 for an extended period of time just playing your cards and not making any reads, you will come out a loser, I garuntee it. again, your statement is dumb and you just proved what I said even more. good try though

My statement proved your point based on what proof?Because you said so?I said you can profit at LHE playing just the cards and I demonstrated it, because I have done it.In response, you "claim", with no proof but your personal guarantee, that I won't make a profit playing 20/40 that way. Forgive me for not giving your guarantee the scientific weight you think it deserves. So, now my statement is only dumb for certain types of LHE games.First, my statement made no prerequisite of betting level, so even if you are right (and I will not make that concession without proof), my statement is still correct, because I have demonstrated it to be possible (if you don't believe me there's nothing I can do about that...that's your choice and prerogative - at the same time, if you want to believe I was lucky for 2 years that is also your prerogative) - yes, it was a terribly measly 3/6 game, for people like yourself that obviously don't consider it a game worth mentioning. It was the smallest available in this city 13 years ago, but at the same time, most nights it was the ONLY game available, so there were some good players. In fact, some were making a living at it (if you consider $200/day a living).btw - we may be arguing semantics.If I have 99 on the button, and UTG raises, MP 3 bets and CO caps, with absolutely no knowledge of the players, if I fold am I playing the cards/odds, or am I folding because of a read? I'm folding because I don't think my 9's are good in that situation, but would you say I've based that on a "read".

the fucking point is that you made such a sweeping generalizatoin and simplification of the game of limit by saying that you can play limit successfully without any reads and make a profit when it's obviously not true in medium to higher stakes.thats's great that you can play like a robot in 3/6 and make a profit, but the fact is that you CAN'T just make a blanket statement about limit poker and then be PISSED off when someone says you're wrong.okay?

[SapphireTiger 0]

You can play limit profitably without having ANY reads on your opponents.You can't do that in NL.

and don't use the argument "well...i was just addressing lower stakes"then you should have said that. your statement implies ALL limit poker.and by the way, you can beat NL small stakes by playing like a robot too.

[Guest Anonymous]

2/4 ( the highest available game is colorado ) is the toughest ... come here and play for further details on whymatt

[KDawgCometh 2]

wow, can you make any less sense and prove any more what I said about your statement being dumb. Try playing LHE above 15/30 for an extended period of time just playing your cards and not making any reads, you will come out a loser, I garuntee it. again, your statement is dumb and you just proved what I said even more. good try though

My statement proved your point based on what proof?Because you said so?I said you can profit at LHE playing just the cards and I demonstrated it, because I have done it.In response, you "claim", with no proof but your personal guarantee, that I won't make a profit playing 20/40 that way. Forgive me for not giving your guarantee the scientific weight you think it deserves. So, now my statement is only dumb for certain types of LHE games.First, my statement made no prerequisite of betting level, so even if you are right (and I will not make that concession without proof), my statement is still correct, because I have demonstrated it to be possible (if you don't believe me there's nothing I can do about that...that's your choice and prerogative - at the same time, if you want to believe I was lucky for 2 years that is also your prerogative) - yes, it was a terribly measly 3/6 game, for people like yourself that obviously don't consider it a game worth mentioning. It was the smallest available in this city 13 years ago, but at the same time, most nights it was the ONLY game available, so there were some good players. In fact, some were making a living at it (if you consider $200/day a living).btw - we may be arguing semantics.If I have 99 on the button, and UTG raises, MP 3 bets and CO caps, with absolutely no knowledge of the players, if I fold am I playing the cards/odds, or am I folding because of a read? I'm folding because I don't think my 9's are good in that situation, but would you say I've based that on a "read".

:wall: :doh: , obviously you haven't played anything outside of the smallest limits. Making idiotic balnket statements is dumb, and it is quite clear that you aren't as good of a limit player as you seem to think you are. Reading players is one of the biggest things to limit cause you need to know when you can value bet 2nd pair WK or when you need to know that you need to throw away your overpair on a drawless board. Again, your statement is dumb, and try playing the 5/10 6 max on party or the 15/30 games on party, and then walk into your local poker room and sit down at the 20/40 table and try playing readless poker for over a year, I can garuntee you that you will be an overall loser, since I play LHE for most of what I live off of, I can safely say that you really don't know what you're talking about, so again, your statement is dumb, do you see why

[Sojuphan 0]

Have a few thoughts on this subject, as it has been a topic of debate at a few games I've played in lately. I currently play 20/40 NL at Commerce and up to 40/80 LHE. In my opinion, low stakes NL requires little more skill than the strategy that Smash advocates. However, as the stakes rise in NL, players have to learn much more and the learning curve becomes rather steep. If you play 10/20 or 20/40 NL, and you don't know how to do more than push all-in you will get destroyed.On the other hand, profit at low stakes LHE requires an incredible amount of skill. It requires a knowledge of poker math and reading ability. As the stakes rise, this continues to be the case. However, the consequences for playing badly are far less disasterous than in NL. With the above personal observations in mind, I would say the level of NL I currently play at has far more texture than the level of LHE I currently play at. It is this texture, and the nuiances I see here that lead me to believe that NL is more difficult at this level.

[shpaget 0]

You can play limit profitably without having ANY reads on your opponents.You can't do that in NL.

and don't use the argument "well...i was just addressing lower stakes"then you should have said that. your statement implies ALL limit poker.and by the way, you can beat NL small stakes by playing like a robot too.

First, read my statement...I said you can play LHE profitably without having any reads - my statement makes ZERO concessions or qualifications for stakes - I said it can be done, and it can...period. If it only applies to lower stakes, so be it, it still can be done....beyond that, I'm not prepared to accept that - percentages are percentages, odds are odds, and your bet in a 80/160 game is the same percentage of the pot as your bet in a 2/4 game. There MAY be better players in the higher stakes, and there may also be more rich maniacs (I have seen this first-hand in many higher stakes games - oil patch workers...lots of money, lots of time, short on brains). Second, you can NOT beat NL small stakes by playing like a robot because without reads the pot odds are in your favour less often than in LHE.Without reads you'd have to fold every time you have top pair and there's 3-flush or 3-straight on the board, because your pot odds are only 1.5:1, because someone bet bigger than the pot on their nut flush draw.It comes down to this - in both NL and LHE you do not need the best possible hand to win...BUT, in LHE you will need the best hand at the table to win more often than you will in NLHE. Therefore, the premium on reading ability goes up in NLHE, and the premium on math (for lack of a better term) in LHE goes up. To me, calculation is an easier skill to acquire than psychology.

[charder30 0]

I guess you guys cant get a joke...oh well

[SapphireTiger 0]

You can play limit profitably without having ANY reads on your opponents.You can't do that in NL.

and don't use the argument "well...i was just addressing lower stakes"then you should have said that. your statement implies ALL limit poker.and by the way, you can beat NL small stakes by playing like a robot too.

First, read my statement...I said you can play LHE profitably without having any reads - my statement makes ZERO concessions or qualifications for stakes - I said it can be done, and it can...period. If it only applies to lower stakes, so be it, it still can be done....beyond that, I'm not prepared to accept that - percentages are percentages, odds are odds, and your bet in a 80/160 game is the same percentage of the pot as your bet in a 2/4 game. There MAY be better players in the higher stakes, and there may also be more rich maniacs (I have seen this first-hand in many higher stakes games - oil patch workers...lots of money, lots of time, short on brains). Second, you can NOT beat NL small stakes by playing like a robot because without reads the pot odds are in your favour less often than in LHE.Without reads you'd have to fold every time you have top pair and there's 3-flush or 3-straight on the board, because your pot odds are only 1.5:1, because someone bet bigger than the pot on their nut flush draw.It comes down to this - in both NL and LHE you do not need the best possible hand to win...BUT, in LHE you will need the best hand at the table to win more often than you will in NLHE. Therefore, the premium on reading ability goes up in NLHE, and the premium on math (for lack of a better term) in LHE goes up. To me, calculation is an easier skill to acquire than psychology.

*sigh* i give up. can aseem or smash come in and take over