Re: [ba-poker] The skill edge in limit and NL

[Jerrod Ankenman <jankenman(deleted the rest)>]

> I've been told that NL cash games don't last because the
> skilled players have such a huge advantage that the 
> others  give up.  That sounds plausible to me.

That's possible, I suppose. Of course, an alternate explanation is that no game 
lasts long when it has a fairly limited pool of players and one subgroup of the 
players has a substantial advantage over the other.

In the pre-WPT world, how many casual players really wanted to play NL as their 
usual game? Was it because they couldn't win but they did occasionally win at 
limit, as you seem to be suggesting? Perhaps, but I sorta think that in NL it 
would be easier, not harder, to book the gigantic "gambler's wins" that keep 
fish coming. I kinda think that once the pool of players reaches a certain 
size, the games stop dying out.

But anyway, that's a secondary issue....

> However, I think the opposite is true in single-table
> online sattelites.  The skilled players may have more of 
> an advantage in the limit games.  First,  tells are less 
> important because you don't get to see the people,
> and tell reading is one of the things that gives experts
> such a huge advantage in big-bet poker.  

A typical expert no-limit player should be able to easily destroy inferior 
opposition without any tells at all. 

> Second, because  the money is not deep and the blinds 
> keep getting bigger, there are many hands in the no-
> limit tourneys in which the only decision round occurs  
> before the flop.  

> How big a mistake can it be to open-raise all-in before > the flop?

Well, for most typical stack/blind ratios, it can be pretty big.

> In contrast, in the limit single-table tourneys one sees
> truly horrible play in the  post-flop rounds.  I'm 
> talking about things like re-raising on the river with a 
> set when a flush and a straight are possible;  or  slow-
> playing hands on the flop that cry out for protection, 
> then springing the trap after the opponent gets a better 
> hand.

It seems you're confusing quantity of mistakes with their magnitude - in NL, 
when someone makes a significant error, they might give away a third of their 
stack in equity (as the hosers on Party do when they call flop jams in small 
pots with naked little flush draws). No mistake in a limit tournament is going 
to compare to that. So you're right when you claim that you'll see more bad 
plays in a limit satellite (probably). But it's fairly unclear that this 
translates into a bigger edge for the skilled player.

I would guess that the edge is somewhat greater in NL satellites, perhaps a 
third more? (ie, if you make 1/5 of a buyin in NL satellites, you might make 
15% of a one in limit?) That's a complete WAG; I have no data of significance 
on limit satellites.

I also can't resist taking a moment to point out that there are less suckouts 
in the mid to late limit tournaments than in no-limit tournaments. Proof of 
this is left as an exercise for the reader.

Jerrod Ankenman