This whole thread is based on a huge misconception. That one game is- easier, more profitable, has less variance, etc- than another.

It all depends on you! People who are good no limit players cannot neccasarilly be good limit players, or people who are good Omaha 8 players are not always capable of being good Hold' em players.

Different games require different skills bith strategically and mentally.

In No Limit you're biggest skills are fearlessness and tilt control, in Limit you're greatest skills are patience and patience. Tilt control is still important but unless you tilt for an hour straight you won't lose your wntire stack. In No Limit 1 instance of tilt can cost you everything.

Like I said it all depends on Y-O-U! play the different games and see which suit you better. I play certain games based on my mood. If I can tell I am in an impatient type of mood I play PLO, if I'm extremely patient I may play some Omaha8. If I feel in an aggressive type of mindset I'll play no limit.

__________________
For poker news, strategy, and more, check out my daily column at Examiner.com

Coryan, unless you are some kind of pro, you should buy in NL ring game with a small stack shouldn't you? Then leave once you obtain a big stack?

So losing your entire stack to a bad beat shouldn't be too painful.

I agree with Steve. wow.

Different strokes for different folks.

I've discussed this issue a couple times on this forum. I believe that a winning NL player should buyin for the max at the table in order to maximize the winnings off their good hands. If I hit a set against a big pocket pair, I want to be able to get as much of his money in the pot as possible. Of course, to do this, I have have have a decent stack of my own. I also believe that the big stack gives me much more flexibility in my play.

BUT, be clear, that the max buyin is for winning players. If you are still learning the game and not yet showing a consistant profit, you will only maximize your loses by buyin in for max. A short stack is MUCH BETTER for learning the game.

I also read a lot of poker related books, articles, etc. and most of the advice given to winning players is that buying in for the max (or close to it) is the best way to maximize your earnings. Sure, buying in for less means you can lose less...but it also limits your winnings.

Having said this, I have also been convinced that there are some players who, because of the style of poker they play, can do well (and possibly better) with a short stack. These players play tight, only bet good hands and never bluff. They will push allin with a strong hand and often get called by bigger stacks who assume they are weaker players (represented by the small stack). This works well for some players. But I believe that those players could do better if they expand their skills to include bluffing and learning to play when they don't have the made hand.

Regarding the idea of leaving the table when you double up. Why? Read what most pros say about this. For example, Jennifer Harman recently had a great article that said the best time to leave a table and when you find it difficult to win and best to stay when you are getting the best of it. So, if you double up AND if the table is still beatable....stay and make more money. I don't believe in hard/fast rules for leaving when you are ahead. I think it depends on the composition of the table, your ability to play (tired, etc.) and other non-poker obligations. So, stay when the money is good and leave when it is not.

__________________
CORYAN
I don't play a lot of hands....I just play a lot of them poorly.

Thanks coryan. It was an article in cardplayer that brought this to my attention a while back.

http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/15367

Btw, i didn't mean leave when you double up, just when you obtain a lot of chips. But i see the points you make on this, and they are all very helpful. Thanks again.

ahh thanks all interesting and helpfull threads...i guess i was just reluctant to hurl myself into learning both

What do you guys think about specialising, howard lederer says you should play different types of games whereas erik sagstrom says you should compleltly specialise

Another key difference i thought was, later on would limit holdem be easier on the mind to play, i mean you'd sit there be patient and play your cards with LESS to think about (im by no means saying its easy etc etc) whereas in NL you'd have to be constantly aware and thinking about how to play in that particular game.

And therefore once you get to a certain level of limit holdem maybe it would become more constant wins as everyday isn't a new battle of wit and deception?


Or have i got that all wrong

lollol cheers, im certainly finding all this interesting

__________________
Wealthymarketer, the latest and greatest way to earn online.
wealthymarketer

Very good article. He does a great job of explaining why a big stack allows (and requires) a variety of play and decisions. I would just add that when he says you much be a skilled player to play with a big stack...I would suggest that this means that you are showing a consistant profit over a significant number of hands (at least 20k).

I love cardplayer.com. It has some of the best articles on poker!

On the "when to leave" comment...one thing I have done is leave the table to bank my earnings and get back on the list for that table (since it has been good for me thus far).

__________________
CORYAN
I don't play a lot of hands....I just play a lot of them poorly.

Just a couple more thoughts on specializing vs. not.

I like the idea of specializing for periods of time, but then changing games after I have learned the game and played it for a while. For example, I have been playing NLHE almost exclusively for about three months. Then about three weeks ago I started playing 7-Card Stud...a very different game. But I found that I needed to stop playing NLHE and concentrate on stud in order to show a profit. So, I like Lederer's suggestion to play a variety of games....just not all at once. Learn one game at a time and play it until you understand the game. After playing several poker variations (I suggest no less than 6 weeks at any one game...unless you just hate the game or lose too much), you can then decide which one (or two) is best for your personality.

The other point that has been made several times about the difference between limit and NL is that: Limit poker is a science while NL is an art. (Not my quote) Limit poker is more about the math, probabilities and making good decisions. NL is about your ability to tell (and read) a story. What do you want your opponent to believe about your hand? What is your opponent telling you about their hand? Creativity is a key component of NL success.

__________________
CORYAN
I don't play a lot of hands....I just play a lot of them poorly.

ahh thanks yeah,

more on that oft asserted phrase of science and art, wouldn't this mean that at limit since its a science its going to be easier to play later on since you wont have to be constantly evaluatinga nd paying as much attention as you would in nlh?

Cheers

__________________
Wealthymarketer, the latest and greatest way to earn online.
wealthymarketer

as i told u in the pm, nl is the way to go right now, the skill level to profit ratio for nl is better than limit right now.