sportsguymichael

I'm a low limit hold 'em player and I like the $3-6 game at the Mirage. It's a mixture of locals and tourists and the people are friendly by and large. The $.50-$1 is a game that I don't remember and is not currently running (at least when I was there in March). I think it is a good place to get your feet wet. I can't comment about downtown poker but I've played at many places on the strip that spread low limit hold 'em and while each player may have their own preferences, I enjoy the Mirage.

Mlee888

I could be wrong but I think the poster is referring to a low level NLH game rather than a limit game itself.

That's how I read it as anyway. I played the Limit $3/6 game a few years back at Mirage. Love the casual set up there!

pseudoswede

Another vote for the 3/6 game at Mirage. That's where I first played poker in Vegas in the early 2000's--eeked out ahead after four sessions. Added bonus was an awesome dealer: think of a shorter, fatter version of Sam Elliott with an even deeper voice.

greggarious

Thanks everyone. I think I'll try limit before NLH, Mirage sounds fun.

pseudoswede

Once you've cut your teeth in the 3/6 game, then I would recommend playing in low-ish no-limit tournaments (MGM Grand?) as well as 4/8 half-kill games. (Half-kill means if the same player wins two hands in a row, the game then becomes 6/12 until said-player loses; "full-kill" is a little more rare, but it would then become an 8/16 game).

As an interesting alternative to a NLH cash game is what is offered here in Colorado: spread limit. One of the most popular games is called 1-2-100. That means the blinds are $1 and $2, but raises (and re-raises) are limited to $100 at any time. So, in theory, it plays a lot like NLH, but it reduces risk of you losing all of your cash in one hand.

nineworldseries

In my opinion, limit poker is less intuitive and more difficult for a novice poker player to learn how to play correctly than no limit.

cogitate

I surely disagree with the above. I have played both limit and no-limit for many years, and it seems to me that limit is far more intuitive and mathematical and LESS difficult for a novice poker player than no-limit. But disagreements are what forums like this are all about.

greggarious

Maybe one is better for a certain style?

If you're better at reading people, slowly grinding out table games, if you're more of a quant, you can sit in a big hat and sunglasses at a tourney :P

greggarious

But if you're playing pure #s, won't you end up under water? Part of this is trying to actually win, not be social. Maybe not become the world series of poker world champion, but maybe as a way to get spending money for vacations, fancy dinners, things my frugal ... won't let me buy.

(But throwing down 50 bucks as entertainment for a couple hours working towards a skill seems like a decent hobby. Cheaper than something like golf that would require equipment and learning to deal with wanna be Bill Murray executives.)

Plus, I worry about attention spans in my generation - it'd be a great way to learn to sit, focus, and not constantly be texting or answering work emails or looking at cat gifs.

pseudoswede

Exactly. It's so much easier to calculate pot odds and implied pot odds when playing limit poker than no-limit.

I wouldn't think of it like that; it could lead to severe disappointment. Just look at it as a way to spend a few hours enjoying free cocktails and honing your poker skills. If you make money, great; if not, then at least you were learning.

What do you think poker players do when they're not playing a hand?

But, yes, you can learn a lot just by looking at the other players when you fold your hand and just observe.

greggarious

Haha, yes, I'm looking at it as an entertainment expense. But the casinos want you to get drunk and loose, I'd prefer to see it on par with the entrance fee to a marathon - yes, it's for fun, but it's more fun to win

pseudoswede

I would also recommend this book...

nineworldseries

I get you, I do. But hear me out. How many novice poker players do you know who check-raise? Ever? That's one of the key strategies to limit and is less important in NL.

Also, tons more variance in NL, which tends to benefit bad players' short-term luck. Easier to play bad and fall into a big pot in NL than limit, where bad play tends to just slowly bleed money.

The flipside is that bad players also tend to be passive calling stations, which is sometimes the correct play in limit but almost never the correct play in NL.

So, yeah, you're probably correct, but I do think that limit strategy is very underappreciated and more complex than most people give it credit for, and is also very difficult for amateurs to play optimally.

cogitate

I very much agree with this poster's book recommendation. I learned much from it and became a much better low limit Hold'em player many years ago. I give credit to this book for that, humbly.

greggarious

so if someone wanted to eventually do tournaments, limit would be a decent way to learn strategy? (Kind of like painting: once you can recreate the Mona Lisa you can run off and do a bunch of weird stuff)