Limit or No Limit

[Extier]

Which games do y'all prefer? Limit or No Limit?

Myself, I prefer No Limit. Much more moves and room to maneuvre in No Limit - whereas Limit, in my opinion, is much more of a straight up/by the book kind of game.

[mfk_1868]

i prefer limit because when i play i give all my mind to game then i can lose badly so i play limited but if i had a lot of money i d play unlimited

[FreeZey]

The tournaments I play in casinos are pot limit.

The tournaments I play on-line are no limit.

The cash games I play on-line are fix limit.

The first two aren’t really from choice. I choose the tournaments depending on their buy-in and when they’re played, rather than looking for PL or NL. TBH both betting structures have their good and bad point I can’t say I have a strong preference.

[Johnny Hughes]

This same topic is being discussed on Card Player's new forum and I am writing long essays and being answered by a mystery person whom I know to be one of the more famous players. He was angered when I said Limit is for sissies. I want to make it as a poker writer and write on several web sites
but this has been my most fun writing on this topic.

I guess that the English join we from the Lone Star State in our preference for no limit. Johnny Hughes google poker

[inertia187]

For me its NoLimit all the way!

I find limit restrictive/dull/boring

Need the thrill of someone going all in with $50 on a J high and calling his ass! [Which has actually happened to me]

[7-2offsuit]

I like both, but I probably prefer No Limit for tournaments and Limit or Pot Limit for cash games. That's because I have such a wee poker bankroll and I'm always playing with scared money

Overall I prefer No Limit. As Sklansky said, when your opponent makes a mistake, you profit. Something like that anyway - I wasn't paying much attention. In NL if you put your opponent on a draw of some kind you can always select the amount you bet which will make it mathematically incorrect for him to continue. If you can control the pot odds you give to your opponent you're basically allowing him/her to make mistakes that they couldn't necessarily make if you were playing Limit, and it's those errors which in the long run will hopefully translate into your being a winner.

On the downside of course sometimes those mistakes can end up costing you everything, but I'd still rather play against chasers than solid players, whatever game we're playing...

[Mastafrick]

while limit is good for new players at low end cash tables... nothing beats the excitement of or the skill needed to master the one n only, no limit hold em... its a game of tells, strategy, skill and luck... fixed limit goes to slow... and theres no scaring anyone away from a draw

[higgi17]

Definately No Limit Fixed limit I find attracts the worst players imaginable and find I am constantly outdrawn by mediocre hands because you cant bet them off a draw or worthless pair ect.

[a4swe]

I prefer PL!
There is often not any reason to raise more than offered by PL so NL is unnecessary, and the fluctuations are less.
FL is just plain boring I think, no action at all.

[resigner]

Has to be No Limit tourny tables for me, and pot limit cash tables. In tournys you need to be able to bluff and bet big when needed. Its all about the right bet at the right time, ok the right cards help, but the right bet will win you far more tournys then sitting around hoping for the perfect hand and callers when you get it.......

If you see me on ladbrokes, say hi

res