Some Thoughts on Limit Vs. No-Limit Poker

I'm principally a limit player. Yeah, I have dabbled in big-bet poker, no-limit and pot-limit, but my poker career started in Washington state, where the laws limited the bet sizes, thereby prohibiting no-limit games. (When I discuss no-limit, I include by inference the other big-bet game, pot-limit, although I recognize there are substantial differences in the games, strategically, tactically, and mathematically.) When I moved to Las Vegas in 1985, there was very little no-limit/pot-limit action, and the action that existed was dominated by tough players. I chose to stay within my element and stuck to the more plentiful (and more lucrative for me) limit games.

With the advent of the World Poker Tour, big-bet poker is making a comeback. The game declined in popularity during the '80s and '90s to the point that it was hard to find a game. The biggest problem with the game is also the reason most championship events are played no-limit: Skill is more critical and chance is less critical in determining the result. The good players tend to bust out the weaker players with great precision and speed. Back then, the good players got all the money, the bad players went broke, and eventually there were no more live games.

With the public's appetite whetted by the WPT, big-bet games are now being spread with regularity in public casinos and on the Internet, and it is causing some fundamental changes in the poker world. The biggest change, of course, is that the millions of people exposed to public poker by television know the game first as a no-limit game, rather than as a limit game. Limit was the overwhelmingly dominant introduction to poker for the past 30 years. People are now entering the poker world through the tournament system, rather than through the live-action system, and many of them on the Internet rather than in brick-and-mortar cardrooms. Most importantly, the flow of money from bad players to good players is accelerating, changing the economic consequences of the game for its participants in significant ways.

Despite the fact that no-limit and limit are dealt the same way, they are quite different. In limit, the amount you can bet is set. Since the amount is often very small in relation to the pot size, you are correct in calling with many significant underdog hands. The ability to "protect" a hand is greatly diminished. In no-limit, you can choose the amount you wish to bet. That being the case, determining how much to bet is a huge factor in no-limit that doesn't exist in limit. And that decision is a tough one! Accurately gauging your opponent's range of hands, the chances of him having each of those hands, how much he would be willing to call with each of them, and betting enough to make it incorrect for him to call yet still inducing a call are among the many, many other decisions you don't have to consider in limit poker. All of these elements will maximize the edge variable of your betting equation.

You need to have the heart to pull the trigger on your decisions in no-limit. Psychology (both yours and your opponent's) and math become more critical factors in no-limit than in limit. Decisions in no-limit have greater consequences. Most mistakes in limit cost you a bet, or in the worst-case scenario a contested pot. Making a mistake in no-limit can, and often does, put you in much greater jeopardy, costing you everything you have on the table. The fact that those decisions that potentially lead to mistakes are more complicated than in limit games gives the good player a much bigger edge over the weaker player.

The character of the games is also different. I have heard it stated, "No-limit can be hours of boredom followed by a minute of acute anxiety." However, I don't think no-limit played correctly should be boring. If you are not spending your time in between hands analyzing the field, you are highly likely to end up on the rail. Ignorance of your opponents' tendencies is much more costly in no-limit than in limit.

As a general rule, fewer hands are played to the river in no-limit. The opportunity to play hands through to the end is greater in limit. Some think that is what makes the limit version of the game more interesting, as you can be in action more often without substantial risk. Others would argue that this makes limit less a matter of skill. There is probably some truth to both of these observations.

So, what version of the game should you play? Do you like the excitement of shoving your whole stack forward? It can be an exhilarating experience! Or, are you there for the social aspects of the game, in which case limit generally offers a less serious environment? Can you handle the much larger fluctuations of no-limit poker, both mentally and financially? How do you rate compared to the opposition? If you are at a disadvantage, you are much better off playing limit. Do you have the heart, courage, and feel to play no-limit? Many more people think they do than actually do!

Many no-limit players look down on limit players with condescension. They see limit as heartless, lacking in machismo, and requiring less skill. That said, many no-limit players compete only in the tournament environment, thus limiting their risk. You can be sure that many big-bet tournament players would have more fear if they were risking cash instead of a percentage of a tournament buy-in.

Also, although the skills in big-bet games are more complex, beating limit poker also requires a high skill level. While reading situations is not as critical as it is in no-limit, it is nonetheless still an important skill. And the play knowledge to be a top limit player is still considerable. Top levels of play in both games should merit respect. That said, because of the differences between the games, few players play both games at a top level.

I am delighted with the re-emergence of no-limit poker. It is a much more exciting spectator game and its popularity on television is bringing much in the way of players and economy to all forms of poker. In the early '80s, I predicted no-limit would fade away, as all the bad players were broke, and to a certain extent that happened, as almost all the live games died and it survived only on the tournament circuit. I now believe that Steve Lipscomb's use of the lipstick camera has revolutionized poker generally and big-bet poker particularly, and that the TV coverage promises an auspicious future for the game.

If I were starting my poker career now, I would focus my efforts on no-limit. Some of my professional colleagues, after careers at limit poker, are redirecting their energies to no-limit. But, if you are going to make that commitment in your own life, make sure you have what it takes to be a winner. Being an also-ran in this game won't cut it!

Roy Cooke played winning professional poker for more than 16 years. He is a successful real estate broker/salesperson in Las Vegas. If you would like to ask Roy poker-related questions, you may do so online at www.UnitedPokerForum.com.