too much heads up....and daniel slow rolls lol

[Smasharoo 0]

"The straight-forward, somewhat mechanical nature of Limit Hold'em means that most of the time you'll have to show down a hand."--Supersystem page 354.You were rudely saying?I was saying that you don't know what you're talking about. The fact that you're quoting a 30 year old book written by a NL pro that people laugh about when they talk about the Limit section esentially proves my case.Thanks for the support.

[Smasharoo 0]

Smash is saying something is so blatantly obvious that only an idiot would fail to recognize it. It ISN'T obviousWell, as you rightly point out, some people will fair to recognize it...Don't worry, though, most inexperienced players think NL is the more complex game but don't find it odd that they learn to beat NL first.They just all think they're so much more skilled than average that they skipped right to being able to beat the more complex game....Hahaaha.Sorry, that still cracks me up.

[KDawgCometh 2]

I did take the time to read the section, and there's no need to belittle me, no matter how big it makes you feel.Smash is saying something is so blatantly obvious that only an idiot would fail to recognize it.   It ISN'T obvious, and it isn't even necessarily true.  I don't dislike his opinion, I dislike his attitude, and I also dislike yours.

wow grow some skin dude. I came to your defense when JFarrell made a ridiculous post and I wasn't belittling you, just pointing out the error in your quote. Limit is now played with two blinds as opposed to one, which makes it more open to complexities now because there is more $$$ in the pot. Back then it was much more mechanical because there was only a small(or half-blind as it was called) in the pot so you could be much more conservative. Since you have read Bobby Baldwin's section throughly then you should realize the fallacy of your qoute

[flyingmoose 0]

Then you're easily amused.And I'm not arguing that you're wrong, I'm arguing that you're being an ******* -- and you're proving me right with each additional post.The source I posted wasn't to prove you wrong, it was to show that anyone who hasn't played high stakes limit has no way of knowing that you're right. And belittling someone trying to learn is bad for the community, and bad for the game.

[flyingmoose 0]

I did take the time to read the section, and there's no need to belittle me, no matter how big it makes you feel.Smash is saying something is so blatantly obvious that only an idiot would fail to recognize it.   It ISN'T obvious, and it isn't even necessarily true.  I don't dislike his opinion, I dislike his attitude, and I also dislike yours.

wow grow some skin dude. I came to your defense when JFarrell made a ridiculous post and I wasn't belittling you, just pointing out the error in your quote. Limit is now played with two blinds as opposed to one, which makes it more open to complexities now because there is more $$$ in the pot. Back then it was much more mechanical because there was only a small(or half-blind as it was called) in the pot so you could be much more conservative. Since you have read Bobby Baldwin's section throughly then you should realize the fallacy of your qoute

You're right; I overreacted. I just find Smash's attitude toward someone clearly asking him to explain a fundamental of the game to be incredibly frustrating, and I took it out on the wrong guy.

[Smasharoo 0]

The source I posted wasn't to prove you wrong, it was to show that anyone who hasn't played high stakes limit has no way of knowing that you're right. And belittling someone trying to learn is bad for the community, and bad for the game.I agree, please stop belittling me, it's embarassing for both of us.

[poguemahone68 0]

Smash is saying something is so blatantly obvious that only an idiot would fail to recognize it. It ISN'T obviousWell, as you rightly point out, some people will fair to recognize it...Don't worry, though, most inexperienced players think NL is the more complex game but don't find it odd that they learn to beat NL first.They just all think they're so much more skilled than average that they skipped right to being able to beat the more complex game....Hahaaha.Sorry, that still cracks me up.

Actually, I've been playing LHE and other forms of limit poker for over ten years. I've only been playing NLHE for about 18 months.

[Smasharoo 0]

Actually, I've been playing LHE and other forms of limit poker for over ten years. I've only been playing NLHE for about 18 months.I'm stunned you'd think NL was more complex then.Did you struggle at limit or something?

[poguemahone68 0]

Actually, I've been playing LHE and other forms of limit poker for over ten years. I've only been playing NLHE for about 18 months.I'm stunned you'd think NL was more complex then.Did you struggle at limit or something?

Why would me struggling at limit make me think NL is more complex? If I struggled at limit, that would give me an excuse to think it was more complex. I'm not seeing the correlation there, sorry. TO answer your question though, I do just fine at limit if I play correctly. Pretty simple really. I just believe there are clear cut actions and plays in limit and not in NL, which leads me to believe NL is more complex.

[longdistance 0]

Smash...how many people telling you youre wrong will make you stop and think for a second.Have you played NL and beat it, and moved to limit?No. Youve only played limit and are happy there because you are scared to lose your roll on a more difficult game.Seriously...have you or do you play NL?

[longdistance 0]

and try responding without being such a p r i c k.It breeds hostility...look at me, i never post and here I am in a flame war with a big flamer.

[Smasharoo 0]

Why would me struggling at limit make me think NL is more complex? If I struggled at limit, that would give me an excuse to think it was more complex. I'm not seeing the correlation there, sorry.The correlation would be that you'd think you could beat it if you played consistently but that it was too constrainging and boring and you couldn't play as creatively as you could in a more complex game like NL so you'd make bad plays in Limit, be a losing player and think that the solution was a more complex game like NL where you would be more engaged.Very common.Then you find that you can beat NL and decide that Limit was mechanical and that you had trouble beating it because you aren't a mechanical player.About the only way you could find the decisions in NL *less* clear cut.

[Smasharoo 0]

Have you played NL and beat it, and moved to limit?No. Youve only played limit and are happy there because you are scared to lose your roll on a more difficult game.Seriously...have you or do you play NL?I crush NL.Do you know why?Because it's sooooo EASY.

[longdistance 0]

Then why dont you post hands from NL?If you kill it, isnt it stupid to play limit when the amount you can win is limited.You can make astronomically more if you really "kill NL"

[longdistance 0]

sorry"crush NL"

[Smasharoo 0]

If you kill it, isnt it stupid to play limit when the amount you can win is limited.You can make astronomically more if you really "kill NL"Not really. There's more variance in NL, so for the same bankroll my winrate at Limit is higher. Because NL is so much less complex, nearly anyone can beat it. A great NL player doesn't really beat it for that much more than a mediocre NL player. In limit on the other hand, a very good limit player who understands the complexities of the game can beat it for much more than a mediocre player so my ROI is better in limit because my advanatge in skill over the average player provides more edge.I crush limit, too.

[KDawgCometh 2]

longdistance-I'm gonna tell you right now, you're fighting a losing battle trying to argue with smash, save your energy that's my advice

[longdistance 0]

kdawg, good advice.Smash, decent reply...but really i dont agree that limit "is sooo much more complex than NL"I thoroughly think youre wrong.Im done here.Good night, good luck

[Smasharoo 0]

Smash, decent reply...but really i dont agree that limit "is sooo much more complex than NL" A lot of people who aren't very good at limit would agree with you, I think.

[longdistance 0]

a lot of people period.

[Smasharoo 0]

a lot of people period.Yup, a lot of people who lay limit aren't very good at it. 90% probably.They'd agree with you, I imagine.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Smash, decent reply...but really i dont agree that limit "is sooo much more complex than NL"

They're different skillsets. Odds calculations are vastly more complex in limit (since you have a lot less ability to restrict the odds your opponents are getting with a call and therefore a lot less control over what hands they can correctly play), while the ability to tailor play to a particular opponent is far more important in no-limit. Which seems more complex generally depends on the individual strengths of the person doing the judging, which is why you can find different authors and pros coming down in each side of the question.

[longdistance 0]

Smash...you should learn to back your arguments up with solid points like that.Very good post, refreshing.

[poguemahone68 0]

Why would me struggling at limit make me think NL is more complex? If I struggled at limit, that would give me an excuse to think it was more complex. I'm not seeing the correlation there, sorry.The correlation would be that you'd think you could beat it if you played consistently but that it was too constrainging and boring and you couldn't play as creatively as you could in a more complex game like NL so you'd make bad plays in Limit, be a losing player and think that the solution was a more complex game like NL where you would be more engaged.Very common.Then you find that you can beat NL and decide that Limit was mechanical and that you had trouble beating it because you aren't a mechanical player.About the only way you could find the decisions in NL *less* clear cut.

Now that's substance! I completely see what you're talking about, but that's not my situation at all. In fact, mine might be worse. I make my money playing LHE and LO8 ring games, both online and live. I play fairly well in NLHE tournies, but it's still an overall loser for me on the year. One of the reasons might be that I play a lot of large MTTs online, which at $30, $50 and $100 add up quickly enough to keep me in the red for NLHE. I used to play strickly SnGs, a mix of LHE, NLHE and LO8b and then I was in the black. I'm in the process of learning the complexities of PLO8 at micro limits. I also play the occassional stud, but stear clear of stud8. I lost $1200 over a couple of days a year ago to that game, as I had no idea what I was doing. I recently played a SnG of it though and came in first.I have 2 wins and several final tables in live LHE tournies, but none in NLHE tournies. I have made 3 NLHE tourney final tables live though.I play 3/6 and 6/12 and 1-1-2 NL live. I am in the red for $300 in the NL live games and $4000 in the black for the LHE live games since 1/1/05.One of the leaks in my NL game is I lay down the best hand too often when faced with a large portion or all of my chips. I have been bluffed out of far too many pots.Thanks for the detailed response. This, however, is not why I believe NLHE to be more complex than LHE.

[JFarrell20 1]

I'm a winning player at both NL and limit, and I can safely say that limit is harder.There are three factors which enable you to win a hand in Hold em:1) Getting Lucky (out-drawing)2) Quality play3) Ability to "bully", or steal potsIt breaks down kinda like this:Limit1) About 10%2) About 86%3) About 4%No limit1) About 10%2) About 70%3) About 20%As you can see, your quality of play has to go up about 22.8% to win at the same rate at limit than you do at NL. This is due to the fact that you have 80% less opportunity to "buy pots".