14 replies to this topic

[Royal_Tour]

Just curious

which would you rather play Heads up?

limit, or NL. and why? (take into account that blinds will raise etc..)

[MasterLJ]

Well, I primarily play heads up online.

I've switched from NL to limit within the last few weeks and have had overall success in this short-term run.

I definitely do not see HU LHE as being profitable at higher stakes (I play for $20). I have a decent win rate at the $20 level for a few reasons. First, I get a lot of people who accidently join the games wanting to have joined a NL game. Second, the people just suck and try to bluff every other hand. Third, my limit game is pretty solid and I have a very good HU strategy for limit. I play all sorts of hands and bust garbage on people. It's important to understand that there is virtually no reason to fold to a raise on the button... ever. Even with 23os, unless they have a pair, you are getting pot odds to call.

The pitfalls of limit are that you get sucked out a whole lot more. I've seen the craziest stuff, like someone capping the board showing 2 3 10 (I held AK) with 57os, hitting their 5 and raising the turn. That's a standard donk play.

The other annoying thing about HU LHE is that it's not a function of how many hands you win, it's a function of WHEN you win them. Winning the first 10 hands in a row is not as good as winning a single hand when each BB is 10% of your stack. The same can be said about NL, but in NL you have the option of pushing every hand.

NL is potentially profitable at all levels. It's a much tougher game to play because you have a short time to size up your opponent. I truly believe that HU LHE will improve your HU NL game because you will showdown 75% of hands. You get to see how opponents react given certain hands. It'll give you a little more confidence in calling down with middle pair etc.

I prefer NL, but for right now I'm enjoying LHE and learning skills that will improve my HU NL game.

[DonkSlayer]

Are you talking cash or tourney-style?

Cash, I prefer NL. Tourney, Limit b/c donks abound in any type of limit tourney. Even though my best game is NL, I've done better consistently at limit tourneys.


Cash, you can score enough from choosing the right opponent to beat the rake; not so sure in limit unless the stakes is big.

[SapphireTiger]

If i think i'm better than my opponent, probably limit.
On a basic level it's because there are more decisions to make, so more opportunities for my opponent to screw up while I am playing as close to perfect poker as possible.

[diamondhead]

Prefer NL HU, feel you can punish people in NL more for bad decisions. I find Limit HU really frustrating sometimes.

[GABMAD]

NL, much more profitable if you're good.

[iggymcfly]

I don't really play a lot of HU unless it's at the end of a tournament or something, but I think I prefer limit HU. You can really get a strong idea of how your opponents are playing, and find a bunch of different things to exploit while you build your stack. Also, you get a lot more information due to the hands that are shown down. In NL, even the worst player can usually manage to get all-in as a 2:1 dog, and then you just have to hope the cards go your way.

The only cash game I'll actually play HU is PLO though. It totally confuses people, and they either get really tight, and give you 3 out of every 4 pots or else, go balls-out and push the **** out of something like bottom two. Hardly anyone seems to play properly. Of course, this might be because I never go to a "heads-up" table, I just stay there when the rest of the table leaves or sits out, and find I can really punish the remaining player a lot of the time.

[hotbacon]

NL, much more profitable if you're good.

How do you figure?

[GABMAD]

How do you figure?

because if you can make your opponents make mistakes, you can punish them by taking all their chips rather than a bet. For instance, if you're playing a donk who loves to draw, it's hard to give him a bad price in limit for many draws, but if he's willing to overpay, you can make him overpay majorly in NL. That's only one factor that increases the profitablity of NL.

[hotbacon]

because if you can make your opponents make mistakes, you can punish them by taking all their chips rather than a bet. For instance, if you're playing a donk who loves to draw, it's hard to give him a bad price in limit for many draws, but if he's willing to overpay, you can make him overpay majorly in NL. That's only one factor that increases the profitablity of NL.

Mistakes are relative to the game played.
Your argument can only be applied when we're talking about complete idiots, which the OP never specified.
There is more variance in NL HU, so a muuuuuuuuuuch bigger bankroll is required to play at similar stakes.
Limit gives more opportunities for a great player to squeeze value out of a marginal hand.
Either way it's very close. NL certainly isn't "much more profitable"
NL is definitely more profitable if you're average or so though.
Limit is probably more profitable for great players.

[MasterLJ]

Mistakes are relative to the game played.
Your argument can only be applied when we're talking about complete idiots, which the OP never specified.
There is more variance in NL HU, so a muuuuuuuuuuch bigger bankroll is required to play at similar stakes.
Limit gives more opportunities for a great player to squeeze value out of a marginal hand.
Either way it's very close. NL certainly isn't "much more profitable"
NL is definitely more profitable if you're average or so though.
Limit is probably more profitable for great players.

I think he's referring to it in terms of win percentage. You can achieve much higher win percentages in HU NL than in HU LHE. Plus LHE takes many times longer to complete a game than NL.

[hotbacon]

I think he's referring to it in terms of win percentage. You can achieve much higher win percentages in HU NL than in HU LHE. Plus LHE takes many times longer to complete a game than NL.

We're not talking about cash games?

[GABMAD]

We're not talking about cash games?

I was talking about sit and goes...and I was talking about win %...currently in 100 HU, my win % is almost 75, in limit that figure is nearly impossible...I do have little data though, I only have 75 games in 100s...what's the with magic # 75?? But in 50s and 20s my win % is 67% and I have close to 300 games, still a small number, but still....

anyway, ya I guess we had a misunderstanding.

HU cash games SUCK, the rake eats you if you play for too long.

[hotbacon]

I was talking about sit and goes...and I was talking about win %...currently in 100 HU, my win % is almost 75, in limit that figure is nearly impossible...I do have little data though, I only have 75 games in 100s...what's the with magic # 75?? But in 50s and 20s my win % is 67% and I have close to 300 games, still a small number, but still....

anyway, ya I guess we had a misunderstanding.

HU cash games SUCK, the rake eats you if you play for too long.

Ummm, you do realize that 75% is cmopletely unsustainable right?
Unless we're talking like a 4 hour structure or something.
A great win rate on, say, stars HU SNGS would be 65%. And that would be against retards.
Your sample is wahy too tiny to infer anything. The variance is so huge in the games that you would need like 100k games before you could start to see your true win rate.

[fleung22]

I just don't think I understand the limit strategy for heads up play.

I play limit ring normally but if I'm playing heads up it's always NL.

Heads up is such a rush for me (thus my FCPHUL team) and I like the psychological aspects of NL in this case.

Cards always matter but limit seems to require so many hands because of it's mechanical nature.

My 2 cents anyhoo.