NL and limit, they are just totally different games completely. Limit poker was only born because of a ruling in america stating that you could only wager a fixed amount on a bet (this was way back in the past of course). This meant you got the fixed limit betting structure we see in limit today in poker and so it carried on. When these rulings got changed or whatever (I am not sure what happened to bring this about but they obviously must have been changed) then of course NL poker came about, however FL was born into America's heart and NL was always in the shadows (the select few did play it, but FL was the most popular) for cash games, tourneys were where it survived. In Europe pretty much everything was pot limit at this point. However with the advent of online poker, NL cash exploded again and now there are vast amounts of both games to choose from.One of the biggest differences you will see between the two games is the amount of showdowns. In NL not a lot of hands go to a showdown at all, but in FL practically everyone does. You therefore obviously have to have the best hand all the time when your involved to be able to win the pot! Thus it becomes more of a card catching contest and less a game of skill than NL. That is not to say limit is not a skillfull game, it is a VERY skillfull game, but the skill is merely being able to maximise a pot when you have the best hand and protect your chips when you dont. Bluffing does exist but is much much rarer than in big bet poker due to the high likehood your opponent will call for just one bet more. The thinking behind the games is completely different, almost all poker literature pre 2 years ago is centered around limit poker thinking - thus you get hand ranking charts, what not to play and what to play etc - it is much more of a science than NL (which is more of an art). Doc makes a very good point in his post about limit being all about pot odds and NL being all about implied odds, I totally agree with this.
Doc also makes the point NL players get frustrated playing limit. He's right, you cannot protect your hands the same way (no more giving people bad odds for a draw, they are almost always correct to draw at you) and this can be highly annoying, you cannot "outplay" anyone as you can never bet an amount or do some play that makes the opposition squirm and genuinely wonder what you have. I disagree with him however when he says you can play more hands preflop in limit, I think the best players are rewarded by playing very loose in NL but tight play just seems to always be generally right in limit.
The crux of it all is you cannot punish bad players as heavily in limit poker. You can never stack someone for all their money that they have, nor can you put anyone to a really tough decision - in limit they only have to worry about 1 bet. This is pretty lame to be honest, it just means you get a bunch of pansys playing at the limit tables as they dont want to be put to tough decisions. A bad decision in limit is punishing for only a few bets either way. It takes a whole night of bad decisions to seriously decimate you. In no limit just 1 single wrong decision can cost you your WHOLE stack or see you bluffed out of a gigantic pot, a lot of players fear having to make these choices and as such stick to the limit tables. Personally I would advocate limit poker to anyone starting out and wanting to learn, then NL tourneys, then small stakes NL cash before moving up.
To sum up, limit poker is just G A Y :)
Jez
