Pages Menu
TwitterFacebooklogin
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 7, 2014 in Blog, General Poker | 14 comments

Mason Malmuth Was Right (Limit vs. No-Limit Hold’em)

 

poker-essays

 

Evidence suggests poker’s doing just fine right now, despite some negatives.  Still, I wonder how much bigger the game might be if we returned to the conditions that were prevalent back in 1991.  In other words, what if everyone was playing limit, instead of no-limit?

 

On page 86 of Poker Essays, master strategist Mason Malmuth writes the following:

What has happened to the no-limit games?  I don’t know of any that are regularly spread in Las Vegas cardrooms or in the Los Angeles area, although some no-limit still gets played in the side action at a few major tournaments….these games have died out.  No-limit was too easy to play well (at least many situations seem to me to be very straightforward), and if you didn’t play well, you were quickly cleaned out.

Today, Malmuth’s opinion may seem absurdly wrong, especially given how no-limit has not only exploded worldwide in popularly but come to dominate the poker landscape over the past decade.  No-limit has become so widely accepted, that it’s now limit games that are in danger of dying out.  Essentially, the modern poker scene is a complete reverse of the scenario Malmuth once described.

The intent here isn’t to ridicule Malmuth, nor take his opinions out of context (which I admittedly have done).  What he wrote in the paragraph above was actually published back in 1991, and was right on the money.  Malmuth, nor anyone else, could have possibly predicted what would happen to poker in the future.  Moreover, I’m convinced history has actually proven him right.  In this essay, I’ll explain why.

Malmuth continued with the following opinion:

Limit play, of course, is not like this.  Although it’s true that poor players will go broke in the long run, they can have some fun on the way.  The edge that the expert no-limit player had on weak opponents was just too great, because often little doubt exists as to what the correct decision is, and when a weak opponent does not make the correct decision, he has only a slight chance and is usually severely punished for his error.

We can debate whether limit or no-limit is a more skillful game.  Years ago, judging by the general reaction among players and strategists to Malmuth’s opinion, most believed no-limit required more skill.  Popular opinion probably sides even more strongly with the no-limit side of the argument today.  In fact, many of today’s poker players have no experience playing limit at all.  This dated game variant seems destined for the same fate as five-card draw and seven-card stud.

Plenty of evidence suggests poker’s doing just fine right now, despite some negatives.  Still, I wonder how much bigger the game might be if we returned to the conditions that were prevalent back in 1991.  In other words, what if everyone was playing limit, instead of no-limit?

At least a couple of things would be different.  First, there would be more players and games.  The weaker players who gradually went bust over the past decade, many of whom never came back again, would have played longer and perhaps even burrowed themselves into the poker community for life.  After all, limit involves sheering the sheep, while no-limit means slaughtering lambs.

Second, and perhaps more important, I’m convinced players would have more fun playing limit poker.  Limit games tend to be more social.  There are good reasons for this.  One mistake in no-limit can cost a player his/her entire stack.  So, the atmosphere in no-limit games tends to be more intense (there are exceptions, of course).  The gravity of an error isn’t nearly so big playing limit, which amounts to only the size of a standard big bet.  Accordingly, more people talk in limit games.  They get to know each other better.  They make friends.  More table socialization enhances the enjoyment of most players.  So, they would want to play longer and sit down at the tables more often.

My background as a player confirms this.  I’ve gone through at least three periods in my life when I played massive numbers of hours, and by this I mean 50-70 hours a week.  Two of these periods occurred before the poker boom.  One occurred right afterward, during the heyday of the online poker explosion when the games at most sites were dynamite.

Looking back now, it was interesting that poker didn’t grow much between 1993 and 2003 when limit was king.  But even though there wasn’t much expansion, players didn’t drop out of the game either.  After all, they could only lose so much.  And, they had fun while playing.  The poker market remained stable for a solid decade, and this was without any new markets opening up, or the benefit of any hit television shows, or any other means of promotion for the game.  In essence, the poker universe was considerably smaller, but also less volatile.  People stuck around cardrooms year-to-year.

Why?

Because limit games were more fun, that’s why.  Those of us who played lots of poker during the 1980s and 1990s remember the huge multi-way pots in typical live-action games.  We remember the vast sea of $3-6, $4-8, and $5-10 games going around the clock wherever casino poker was spread.  In the games I spent most of my time, playing $10-20 up to $40-80, this was also true.  We remember lots of post-flop action, which made the games far more entertaining to play and watch while being at the table.  We remember players acting quickly and not grandstanding with time-wasting delays, agonizing over whether or not to call an all-in raise.  Indeed, poker was more interesting and enjoyable when limit dominated.

If that’s not convincing enough, then consider the future of no-limit, which calls for skepticism.  Are present conditions sustainable?  Probably not.  We’ve already begun to see a falloff in some poker markets where weaker players go bust too quickly, and then never come back.  While poker, in general, remains capable of expansion (especially online), the fish pool is limited because of the higher “kill off” factor.  In short, it’s far better to have a player lose $5,000-per-year to the poker economy over a ten-year span than $50,000 within a single year.  That’s because the loser feels little or no pain from donating that sum of money each year.  And so, he’ll probably play another ten years or more.  Contrast this with the pain of losing $50,000 in a year, which still stings.  Even though it’s the same loss, this experience not only turns him against the game forever but also prevents him from being an advocate for poker among his friends and colleagues (i.e., recruiting more players).

When this year’s World Series of Poker official schedule was released, I took some serious heat from a few longtime poker veterans who criticized fewer limit events on the schedule (particularly limit hold’em).  While I had little to do with that decision, the numbers don’t lie.  Participation in limit tournaments is down.  Limit hold ’em used to draw the biggest fields of any event (even bigger than the Main Event Championship).  But those days are long gone.  There just aren’t that many limit players around anymore, and they’re only a small fraction of the overall global market which remains unwaveringly loyal to no-limit.

My personal view is that I’d like to see limit make a major comeback.  I’d like to see far more limit games spread because I think that’s better for the overall health of the game.  I’ve also convinced the skills necessary to win are just as critical in limit as no-limit, as Malmuth once said.  But that’s a debate for another time.

What would a mass conversion from no-limit back to limit mean for the average poker player?  I believe a significant expansion of limit poker would give a greater number of players a chance to share what I believe would be a greater pool of wealth.  It would take longer to get the money, for sure — which benefits the house (more games going longer means a bigger drop).  The game would be better for most people, even the losers because they wouldn’t lose as much, as fast.

In summary, my conclusions are as follows:

(1)  Limit requires a different skill set than no-limit.  Its strategies are just as complex.  Limit arguably may even be more of a skill game than no-limit.

(2)  While no-limit is ideally suited for televised events, limit poker is better for most players who play cash games, both in cardrooms and online.

(3)  A substantial increase in the percentage of limit hold’em games in most cardrooms and online would be far better for most players and the long-term growth of poker.

READ MORE:  Best Poker Strategy Books

14 Comments

  1. And what, Nolan, about POT LIMIT Hold’em ? That’s my (i.e. medium-grade amateur) game of choice…

  2. Speaking for Mason Malmuth and myself: Spot on Nolan!I remember in the late nineties a couple of no limit games were popping up here and there. They usually lasted about a year and all what was left was sharks eating each others fins.

    Given that experience, I’ve always wondered how long it will last this time around. Back then, the cardrooms tried to protect their small customers by not offering to much NL. After all, it was their profits being eaten up by the sharks. Of the $200 a limit player loses throughout a month, $180 end up with the house in the form of rake. If he loses the same amount in no limit, it’s $5 or $10 remaining with the house, depending on if his stack lasted one or two rounds.

  3. I agreed with Mason’s statements back in the 1990s, and I largely agree with your analysis now. However, there are some other factors that deserve consideration.

    Back when Mason wrote that stuff, no-limit was generally a game with unlimited buy-ins. When the poker boom happened, no-limit was king, but almost always with restricted buy-ins. This wasn’t something that Mason had anticipated, but it was a very good idea which helped keep the less skilled players in action longer. This mitigates, to some extent, Mason’s concerns.

    One big mistake card rooms made in the last 8 years or so was to listen to their regular players and increase the max buy-in on these no-limit games. This might have helped those regulars in the short run, but it probably hurt the games (ecosystem) in the long run. Rule of thumb for a card room manager: Make the room and rules attractive to casual players. If you attract them, the regulars will come too.

    Regarding no-limit vs limit and skill, certainly no-limit is the more complex game. That can be demonstrated trivially. I believe that with deep stacks it also lends itself to more skill. However, I know several people who play in short-stacked no-limit games who play (and win with) a rote strategy that’s pretty easy to learn. I don’t know anyone who wins that way playing limit. So, I’d say regarding skill, deep stack no-limit >> limit >> short stack no-limit.

  4. Another aspect of limit vs. no-limit that I feel was overlooked is the fact that in limit, when you sit down at a $2/$4 table, you have a pretty good idea how much a flop is going to cost you.

    The other night I popped into a $1/$2 NLH game on the strip. I don’t think I saw an opening raise for less than $12 and $17 or $20 opening raises were not uncommon.

    By definition, poor players are going to play too many hands, so how many times can they afford to miss the flop or draw to their hand before they’re felted? On a $200 buy in, that’s 10 hands or less.

    That’s like walking into a casino wanting to play $5 black jack but being told you had to play 4, $5 hands at a time.

    Like you said, in limit that guy might only end up losing $40 a session but he’ll play for years. If he’s dropping $200 a session, his poker career is only going to last a fraction of that. Overall, he’ll put less money into the poker economy at $200 a session because the burnout happens a lot quicker. I think you were overly generous comparing $5,000 a year for 10 years to $50,000 in one year. A far more likely scenario is the player losing $30K in one year and walking away is disgust compared to playing 10 years at $5,000 a year and only quitting when the game no longer appeals to him.

    That said, I don’t mind NLH for tournaments as tournaments already take a considerable amount of time to play out. Added to that, I think tournaments have a different psychological feel.

    A player who buys into a $500 tournament, hopes, but doesn’t expect to win. He knows that there’s a very good chance he won’t even cash. Plus, the upside is more lottery like. A cash game player is never (okay, very rarely) going to buy into a $500 buy-in game and walk away with $10K in a single session.

    A player who buys into a $500 NLH game doesn’t think he’s going to lose it all. He’s hoping to either walk away with a small win or a small loss. When he does get felted, it stings a lot more than losing $500 in a tournament.

  5. I read these books by Mason when published and knew this was going to be a problem once NLH began to dominate.

    Once the fresh money runs out, poker will not flourish with NLH as the dominant game.

    The social aspects are also much much better in limit and are crucial to an enjoyable playing experience long-term.

  6. There are bots that play limit that are so good that only the most skilled players can beat them. There are no such bots in no limit. Limit is largely algorithmic; no limit is a much more nuanced game. I tried to deal with this issue some years ago in:
    http://arthurreber.com/home/bot-this.html
    and
    http://arthurreber.com/home/bot-this-too.html
    The other points you make about going broke are basically correct but they have to be adjusted for the stakes. A game of 2/4 limit has little in common with 40/80 with a kill.

  7. “My personal view is that I’d like to see limit make a major comeback. I’d like to see far more limit games spread, because I think that’s better for the overall health of the game.”

    It’s like your in my head mannnn! 🙂

    Big Daddy Approved, here in my area – Never any limit tables going and this keeps me away for the most part.

    Hardly a person in our area games can truly afford to be sitting in these games, aside from the rich kids – living with their parents till 30. lol

    Countless friends tell me of their $200 to $400 loss due to some ass hat chasing a hit on the river (with pocket “3’s”) BOOM! 3 on the river.

    When I go to play, I want a good 10-12 hour session, with a good dinner in-between.

    Shame the poker room managers do not get it. **Many rake producing long time players stopped playing..**

    Hell – When I’m looking for real action – I’ll play NL and hold my own.. but with LIMIT, I (and others) crush the pocket 3’s players – Limit is a patience game – something most action junkies (NL players) would rather win or lose fast!

    The social part still happens with NL, but the stress most under budget players play under makes for less fun and more negative (real negative some times, knives, guns, etc) action. Action, BD would rather not have.

    Great read! Love the POKER talk!!!

    Cheers!

  8. theres a big problem with limit taking over NL someday–the rake (and all these damned jackpot drops that didnt use to be–are far worse than they were 10 yrs ago). it makes ALL of the limit games unbeatable–except the high stakes.

    the low stakes $2-4, $3-6, $4-8 — no one can beat it for $100 a day longterm. u pretty much need to play $1-2 NL or higher for any shot at this.

    this will need fixed–before limit can be popular. what would help in vegas–would be capping the buyins lower and offering $40 NL like the commerce does. then u dont need near as big a roll to play NL, can still grind out $50-100 a day with less variance, and to hell with the regs who dont like people buying in short–buying in short is very good for the health of the games long term

    • Grinding out $50-$100/day sounds worse than a job at McDonald’s.

      Short buying = broke player. Broke players don’t add much to the “poker economy”.

      And if this is the Tony Bigcharles / TBC guy…. l o fuckin l at giving any advice that is poker related.

      $40Nl….lollolollllol!!!! Fucking donkey poker right there. If you want to go broke when your entire net worth is sub-$3k, make sure you go to Los Angeles and play a game with a $40 dollar max buy in… deeerrrppp…

      • Bellagio 5-10, I doubt you play the 5-10 at the Bellag and if you do, you know me.

        More than likely, you’re a stupid child or an internet fantasist who has big theories about the glam poker life but is actually working a crappy day job or living with mom. We see these idiots all the time on internet forums.

        I actually have a great deal of respect for what TBC does. I may not care for him personally or his politics, but he’s been around town forever and he supports himself in the actual, real world way measured in dollars and cents (as opposed to the internet theorist way measured in imaginary yachts and general awesomeness)

  9. Just read this. Great stuff, limit poker rules. Wish the Horseshoe in baltimore spread it more.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php