LHE vs NLHE

[Smasharoo 0]

When playing no limit it is very hard to play on line like 5 tables at once because there is so much more going onThat's silly.I don't know anyone who plays NL seriously online who doesn't 4 table.In fact, it's probably easier to 4 table NL because the decisions are much more clear cut the vast, vast, majority of the time.

[poguemahone68 0]

actually I think stud can be even more complex than holdem

Excellent point KDawg, but I wasn't even trying to go there yet. I believe there is a lot of psycology in stud too. Looks can be so deceiving in that game. Which leads into razz, talk about a mindfuk!

really I just wanted to stir the pot even more. Stud is my main and best game. I feel its both art and science. I hate the Johnny Moss quote "stud is to holdem what checkers is to chess" like no tommorrow. Stud takes a great amont of skill to play at an expert level and is a wonderful game to learn

I agree, I really like that game. I mostly play it online though, because there's usually only one table, if any, going at the local B&Ms around here and it's full of hardcore stud players who would take my BR too quickly. I think I'll give it a go once I've logged a hundred more hours or so online. I did make 4th in my first stud tourney of 118 players though.

[KDawgCometh 2]

actually I think stud can be even more complex than holdem

Excellent point KDawg, but I wasn't even trying to go there yet. I believe there is a lot of psycology in stud too. Looks can be so deceiving in that game. Which leads into razz, talk about a mindfuk!

really I just wanted to stir the pot even more. Stud is my main and best game. I feel its both art and science. I hate the Johnny Moss quote "stud is to holdem what checkers is to chess" like no tommorrow. Stud takes a great amont of skill to play at an expert level and is a wonderful game to learn

personally i think theres far more skill in stud and a lot less luck.

can't argue with you on that one since I fully agree

[Smasharoo 0]

personally i think theres far more skill in stud and a lot less luck.I don't.Stud8 maybe. Stud Hi, not so much.

[PUNNISHER 0]

NLHE and LHE are obviously 2 very different games. To classify one over the other in terms of difficulty is near impossible. The major difference between the 2 is the ability to win w/o a hand. This could go for or against you depending on your opponents and the limit you play. I have found that in NLHE bad players are rewarded often enough to have them continue making bad plays. In NL your main goal is to win a bunch of small pots and attempt to trap and take down a huge pot. It is easier to get off of bottom pairs with good kicker as someone could bet enough to represent to you that your smashed. However, in LHE, the bad players seem to continuously get pounded. I have seen numerous occasions where call stations call a guy to the river and then call the guys bet on the river the guy turns over AK and wins. The CS mucks. Bad players that chase gutshots in NL also do so in LIM, but when they do hit their miracle on your set you don't have to lose your entire roll. Also in the game of limit, your TPTK wins you much more money over the long haul. In NL, believe it or not, guys will lay down the TP with a mid kicker very often, however in limit, their thinking is, oh it's only one more bet to call on the flop, turn and oops the river as well. These bets continue to add up. If you were to take a solid Limit and NL player and have him play exclusively Limit for an entire year, then the following year he can only play NL, I would be shocked if he'd make more in the NL year. Sure he would win more in one night of NL than he could probably win in Limit, but over the year's time, I (speculating of course) would not be surprised to see the Limit year having him profit somewhere around 25% more so than the NL year. NL back in the 60's and 70's would have been my road to making money as most players held a conservative type of attitude, with the pure aggression, that the Majority of today's players hold, I feel that limit is the best option to take. Treat your bankroll like a Hot Pocket. You can throw it in the microwave and have it ready to eat in 2 minutes (NL), or you can toss it in the old conventional oven, slowly cook for 20-25 minutes (LIM) and I assure you that the end result will taste much better.

[Quagmire 0]

I think most of the arguments listed above are why I like to play a mixture of both. I've built my bankroll playing solid LHE and steadily moving up in limits. But, I love playing NLHE. My problem is risking a sizable chunk of my bankroll on potentially one turn of the card in NLHE. So, I play NLHE in tournies. That way my buy in is the only thing at risk, and I get to make all of the same decisions in that game without risking my bankroll.

[poguemahone68 0]

When playing no limit it is very hard to play on line like 5 tables at once because there is so much more going onThat's silly.I don't know anyone who plays NL seriously online who doesn't 4 table.In fact, it's probably easier to 4 table NL because the decisions are much more clear cut the vast, vast, majority of the time.

Figured you pick up on this one, as opposed to some of the other points. I do agree with you on this one Smash, playing low stakes NL ring games online is pretty boring and multi tabling is a must.

[Smasharoo 0]

Figured you pick up on this one, as opposed to some of the other points. I do agree with you on this one Smash, playing low stakes NL ring games online is pretty boring and multi tabling is a must.What other points?

[Uppie_ 0]

I play NL but i am going to be on the limit side of this argument and this is why, if i am playing no limit and make a mistake or get sucked out for my stack i can rebuy and win it back the next hand. If i make a mistake in a big pot in limit or get sucked out in a pot i have stuck a lot of bets in it might take me the better part of the night to win those bets back.

[poguemahone68 0]

NLHE and LHE are obviously 2 very different games.  To classify one over the other in terms of difficulty is near impossible.  The major difference between the 2 is the ability to win w/o a hand.  This could go for or against you depending on your opponents and the limit you play.  I have found that in NLHE bad players are rewarded often enough to have them continue making bad plays.  In NL your main goal is to win a bunch of small pots and attempt to trap and take down a huge pot.  It is easier to get off of bottom pairs with good kicker as someone could bet enough to represent to you that your smashed.  However, in LHE, the bad players seem to continuously get pounded.  I have seen numerous occasions where call stations call a guy to the river and then call the guys bet on the river the guy turns over AK and wins.  The CS mucks.  Bad players that chase gutshots in NL also do so in LIM, but when they do hit their miracle on your set you don't have to lose your entire roll.  Also in the game of limit, your TPTK wins you much more money over the long haul.  In NL, believe it or not, guys will lay down the TP with a mid kicker very often, however in limit, their thinking is, oh it's only one more bet to call on the flop, turn and oops the river as well.  These bets continue to add up.  If you were to take a solid Limit and NL player and have him play exclusively Limit for an entire year, then the following year he can only play NL, I would be shocked if he'd make more in the NL year.  Sure he would win more in one night of NL than he could probably win in Limit, but over the year's time, I (speculating of course) would not be surprised to see the Limit year having him profit somewhere around 25% more so than the NL year.  NL back in the 60's and 70's would have been my road to making money as most players held a conservative type of attitude, with the pure aggression, that the Majority of today's players hold, I feel that limit is the best option to take.  Treat your bankroll like a Hot Pocket.  You can throw it in the microwave and have it ready to eat in 2 minutes (NL), or you can toss it in the old conventional oven, slowly cook for 20-25 minutes (LIM) and I assure you that the end result will taste much better.

It is my belief that you can teach someone with even mild intelligence to be a winning LHE player. I don't believe the same is true for NLHE. The best NLHE players in the world who are successful in tournament play have something more, they also have an uncanny ability to read people and figure out what they have. I'm not just talking about memorizing Caro's book of tells, but the ability to put all the information together to make the correct decision. In limit, you just do the same thing over and over and in the long run, you'll be a winner. I don't understand what's so complex about that.

[Smasharoo 0]

I don't believe the same is true for NLHE.I wrote about a 19 word sentace on how to beat NLHE, lots of posters have tried it and have.It's so much easier to teach someone to beat bad players in NLHE it's laughable.Teaching someone to beat bad players in LHE is much harder.Teaching someone to beat beat good players in etiher format is dificult, but being a long term winner at limit at the highest levels is much harder because when the sucker show up you have less of an edge to exploit over him and must play flawlwessly or near it. There is much, much, more room for error in NL.

[poguemahone68 0]

Figured you pick up on this one, as opposed to some of the other points. I do agree with you on this one Smash, playing low stakes NL ring games online is pretty boring and multi tabling is a must.What other points?

I think people have pointed out many differences between the two games. People have put substance into their responses, yet you have not. Since you are a really good LHE player, I think you could have some great substance to contribute to this discussion. You mentioned in the other thread discussing this issue that the reasons for LHE being more complex than NLHE were blatant and obvious, yet I don't feel they are as obvious as you may think. Maybe they are more subtle and we all could learn a hell of a lot here.

[Smasharoo 0]

I think people have pointed out many differences between the two games. People have put substance into their responses, yet you have not. Since you are a really good LHE player, I think you could have some great substance to contribute to this discussion. You mentioned in the other thread discussing this issue that the reasons for LHE being more complex than NLHE were blatant and obvious, yet I don't feel they are as obvious as you may think. Maybe they are more subtle and we all could learn a hell of a lot here.Learn what?This is a pointless topic, pulled from another topic because your ego was bruised.Arguing about which is the more complex game isn't teaching anyone anything about playing either one more effectively. I'm probably a bettter NL player than I am a limit player (allthough not as good as I am at PLO8) I just find it intensly BORING to play because it's so much less complex.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

I've tried multi-tabling both NL games and limit games and I find limit harder to excel at, especially because there are usually way more people involved in the average pot in limit. Making a mistake can cost me several bets in limit and while that doesn't always seem like a lot, it's not easy to outmanuver others to make up for those lost bets either. The reason is because there are less moves to make in limit, just the standard raise, call, fold. I have less of an edge over weaker players. I can make up for mistakenly checking in a certain spot by raising a large amount if someone else bets in that round in NL. If I check at the wrong time in limit, the raise I might throw in there can't drive any draws out when it comes back to me. Little things like that make limit harder to play for me. It isn't usually too hard to figure out who's got the premium hand and who can be parted with his hand in NL. This will always be debatable, but I personally find limit harder to master.

[jervmoney334 0]

I'm probably a bettter NL player than I am a limit player (allthough not as good as I am at PLO8) I just find it intensly BORING to play because it's so much less complex.If as you said its easier to beat bad players in NL and you are a better NL player, i would find it more enjoyable winning more money but instead you play limit where it takes more intelligence but your not winning as much as you would in NL, seems pretty unintelligent to me but money probably means more to me then you

[akishore 0]

if i can chime in, both sides are right, but more importantly, it really depends on your opponents.a strong argument for what makes NL harder is that there are many more variables, and naturally, with more variables, the game is more complex and thus requires more skill to beat.however, an equally strong argument for what makes limit harder is that there are less variables, which means that you have less of an edge, which means that all your little moves add up and you have to play correctly time after time after time, whereas in NL, one lucky hand can cover up all your mistakes.to me, those arguments cancel out. so consider opponents.against bad opponents, NL is just too easy, whereas limit still is not.against good opponents, NL is much harder than it is against bad players, because the better players have a bigger edge, and you will get outplayed so often and will eventually get trapped for all of your chips.against good opponents, limit is still just as hard, maybe harder, because you have a smaller edge and you STILL have to make the correct moves consistently.against the best opponents, both are equally hard.so my answer is: at the lowest limits, limit is harder, but as you go further up and up and the opponents get better and better, they approach the same amount of difficulty.that's why you should just learn both, they're both fascinating.aseem

[Smasharoo 0]

If as you said its easier to beat bad players in NL and you are a better NL player, i would find it more enjoyable winning more money but instead you play limit where it takes more intelligence but your not winning as much as you would in NL, seems pretty unintelligent to me but money probably means more to me then youWho said I made less money at Limit?Doesn't seem very intelligent to respond to imaginary posts that don't exist.Why would you do that?

[poguemahone68 0]

I think people have pointed out many differences between the two games. People have put substance into their responses, yet you have not. Since you are a really good LHE player, I think you could have some great substance to contribute to this discussion. You mentioned in the other thread discussing this issue that the reasons for LHE being more complex than NLHE were blatant and obvious, yet I don't feel they are as obvious as you may think. Maybe they are more subtle and we all could learn a hell of a lot here.Learn what?This is a pointless topic, pulled from another topic because your ego was bruised.Arguing about which is the more complex game isn't teaching anyone anything about playing either one more effectively.  I'm probably a bettter NL player than I am a limit player (allthough not as good as I am at PLO8) I just find it intensly BORING to play because it's so much less complex.

Nope, ego still intact, sorry to disappoint. Your posts are blatantly geared to stroke your own ego and I would be willing to bet you could care less about educating your fellow poker player, you seem to truly enjoy stirring the pot and lashing out at people. Anyone with a quick wit can do it, the question is why would you do it? Some people do it because they are unhappy and others do it just for laughs. In your case I believe it's purely ego.I have yet to see you admit to being wrong about anything or even tell someone that they taught you something on this forum. If you are just here to teach, then quit with the attacks and the name calling and all the BS, no real need for it.I feel one of the main reasons to point out specific complexities is to enlighten and learn. I think you know that many people are going about learning hold'em in reverse order, jumping str8 into NL games without learning the fundamentals. I think LHE has less BR variance and less intricacies ivolved to allow someone to play limit and learn without losing their shirt. I think NLHE requires more weapons in one's arsenal, yet those weapons are useless if the fundamentals aren't learned first.Also, I believe there are complexities to LHE that most people, including myself can't grasp, even with years of experience. If I'm missing something, I want to know what it is as I'm sure others, who are truly interested in learning and becomming the best player they can, do too.Another thing is that some people just aren't very good at grasping things from books. Someone could be reading this thread and find something that changes their approach to the game.

[Smasharoo 0]

I have yet to see you admit to being wrong about anything or even tell someone that they taught you something on this forumYou need to read me more, I do it all the time.What you don't see very often is people like you who have decided to challange me out of spite admitting to being wrong because they've decided they refuse to give me the satisfaction.I don't learn much on this forum, to be honest, but ocassionally someone will mention something I hadn't thought of and I'll credit them for it.Sorry that I'm not going to admit to being wrong here when I'm not. Personaly I don't consider that a character flaw.Oppinons vary.

[darksung 0]

We should refer to the greatest poker player ever, not to smash's micro-limit arguments. Doyle Brunson said it, NLHE is the cadillac of poker games.

[KDawgCometh 2]

We should refer to the greatest poker player ever, not to smash's micro-limit arguments.  Doyle Brunson said it, NLHE is the cadillac of poker games.

yes, and Daniel and Lederer would probably tell you they like Limit Holdem more

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

My opinion is that limit is a better game online than no limit.The reason I think this is that gutshots, 1-outers, underpairs... all of these are spiked on you in poker inetivably, in either limit or no limit. However, in Limit, the way I play leads itself to an expectation of profit. This expectation falls within a certain range, and if I play that way I'm more or less guaranteed to see predictable and steady results. It's only a question of putting in the hands and short-term variance.As compared to no limit... no limit is certainly sexier. The potential for a big win is always there, and you're always one hand away from doubling up or going broke. Because of that, I think short term luck and volatility far too harshly affects variance. If someone can spike a gutshot on my top set and break me and then get up and cash out, I just don't think I can be a winning NL cash game player ONLINE. I much prefer no limit for tournaments because a) they can't leave with your money until you're broke, and b) there are PLENTY of decent or even good NL cash game players who have a 0% chance of winning a tournament because they don't understand the intricacies.Just my thoughts... thought I'd contribute.

[poguemahone68 0]

I have yet to see you admit to being wrong about anything or even tell someone that they taught you something on this forumYou need to read me more, I do it all the time.What you don't see very often is people like you who have decided to challange me out of spite admitting to being wrong because they've decided they refuse to give me the satisfaction.I don't learn much on this forum, to be honest, but ocassionally someone will mention something I hadn't thought of and I'll credit them for it.Sorry that I'm not going to admit to being wrong here when I'm not.  Personaly I don't consider that a character flaw.Oppinons vary.

I've read this sentence a few times now and it's still unclear to me what you're getting at. Are you saying that it's rare for someone to disagree with you on this forum? As in, "what you don't see very often"...I could care less about your character flaws, but I will say something when someone talks to me the way you do. I've debated your opinions and I've stated mine. You are the one who took it to another level and I pointed out that you do it with fierce regularity.Your hand histories can sometimes be informative, but whenever you venture outside of those, you just offend, attack or belittle and add next to no helpful information to the conversation.I'll state an example here , which supports the belief that LHE is more complex than NLHE. I believe you can play a NLHE sit n go blind, without looking at your hands and fair better than playing a LHE sit n go blind. Or does that support the opposite?

[Swift_Psycho 1]

We should refer to the greatest poker player ever, not to smash's micro-limit arguments.  Doyle Brunson said it, NLHE is the cadillac of poker games.

Because Doyle is God? We aren't all just following Smash's ideas. At least most of us thought who thought limit was more difficult believed it for our own reasons. I just think this topic is a matter of opinion that can be debated to no end. Just like I believe Stud is harder for me to master than Omaha, limit or no limit can be harder for someone to master than the other by natural default. That's why we're all having this discussion in the first place.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

I've read this sentence a few times now and it's still unclear to me what you're getting at. Are you saying that it's rare for someone to disagree with you on this forum? As in, "what you don't see very often"...I could care less about your character flaws, but I will say something when someone talks to me the way you do. I've debated your opinions and I've stated mine. You are the one who took it to another level and I pointed out that you do it with fierce regularity.Your hand histories can sometimes be informative, but whenever you venture outside of those, you just offend, attack or belittle and add next to no helpful information to the conversation.I'll state an example here , which supports the belief that LHE is more complex than NLHE. I believe you can play a NLHE sit n go blind, without looking at your hands and fair better than playing a LHE sit n go blind. Or does that support the opposite?

It supports the opposite.Edit: Nevermind, misread it.