limit vs. no limit

[AlphaOmega 0]

No, this isn't a pissing match between the two games. I've tried using the search and I can't come up with anything reasonable to answer my question.Which has more variance, and can anyone rank the games from lowest variance to highest variance between SH and FR Limit Hold 'Em and SH and FR NL Hold 'Em?

[AceJackOffS 0]

most varianceSH NL HESH LHEFR NL HEFR LHEIMO

[RainDogz 0]

most varianceSH NL HESH LHEFR NL HEFR LHEIMO

[ThatPkrGuy 0]

most varianceSH NL HESH LHEFR NL HEFR LHEIMO

i would disagree here.i would say:SH LHESH NLHEFR LHEFR NLHEI think they have it backwards...the swings in NL aren't as bad as you would think.If they are you most likely are doing something wrong. Pushing to small of an edge against a weak opponent when u could find a better place to get it in...ect

[AlphaOmega 0]

I think they have it backwards...the swings in NL aren't as bad as you would think.

This is where I am confused. If NL has a lesser variance associated with it, then why is your ROR so high, and you are thus recommended to have 15-20 buy-ins, and even more for SH play?

[Canada 0]

It's a redundant question if you are practicing good BR management.

[AlphaOmega 0]

I've also seen several people post that limit is far more consistent in profit than NL (which I have observed), but does the consistency necessarily entail less variance?

[AlphaOmega 0]

It's a redundant question if you are practicing good BR management.

I agree.I do think that it this question is relavent, however, if you constantly withdraw from your bankroll, as I do, for various expenses. I'd like to settle on a game with a softer variance so that I don't have to be as worried about my BR requirements.In light of this, I will concede that this isn't an earth-shattering question. The answer to this question partly serves to evaluate my game preference considering my situation, but mostly will alleve my curiosity.

[ThatPkrGuy 0]

It's a redundant question if you are practicing good BR management.

Agreed!But the reason that most people say that Limit is more profitable is because...well because it most likely is. If you play tight aggressive in Limit you can only make money...thats pretty much all there is to it.NL is all about picking your spots and taking advantage of weak opponents. To totally different situations. Limit is more stable of a money maker because you should you get drawn out on you only lose a few more bets.Non on the flipside of the coin...NL when you get outdrawn and all of your money is already in the pot...IE AA vs. KK and he/she spikes trips and takes it down. Now you've lost the maximum in a single hand.I think this is were people get that it has such a high variance. But what they don't see is that you're going to win in that situation a number of times so things will even out over time.Try this sometime if your a serious player. Use PT to calculate your playing stats for limit and NL.take 100K hands from both and see which one has more varience...i'm willing to bet that Limit will have more.I may be wrong...but i'm pretty sure i'm not.

[dms26 3]

take 100K hands from both and see which one has more varience...i'm willing to bet that Limit will have more.I may be wrong...but i'm pretty sure i'm not.

Isn't variance just short term fluctuation? If so, over 100K hands there should be almost no variance, a good player will win in limit or NL. If I wanted to see which was more profitable then yeah 100K hands would be a good point of reference.But I think he is looking for short term swings, which I would say would be lower in limit. Especially if he wants to withdrawal funds every couple weeks.

[Wingmaster05 0]

I was about to flame to the OP for not using the search function, but he attempted, and i know better. The search function sucks. Is there something we are doing wrong, or is it the search?

[AlphaOmega 0]

I was about to flame to the OP for not using the search function, but he attempted, and i know better.  The search function sucks.  Is there something we are doing wrong, or is it the search?

It's the search. It freaking sucks. Maybe it's because I'm so spoiled by google, as we all are I'm sure, but there's going to be countless repeat posts every day until it gets improved.

[Petoria 0]

It's a redundant question if you are practicing good BR management.

Agreed!But the reason that most people say that Limit is more profitable is because...well because it most likely is. If you play tight aggressive in Limit you can only make money...thats pretty much all there is to it.NL is all about picking your spots and taking advantage of weak opponents. To totally different situations. Limit is more stable of a money maker because you should you get drawn out on you only lose a few more bets.Non on the flipside of the coin...NL when you get outdrawn and all of your money is already in the pot...IE AA vs. KK and he/she spikes trips and takes it down. Now you've lost the maximum in a single hand.I think this is were people get that it has such a high variance. But what they don't see is that you're going to win in that situation a number of times so things will even out over time.Try this sometime if your a serious player. Use PT to calculate your playing stats for limit and NL.take 100K hands from both and see which one has more varience...i'm willing to bet that Limit will have more.I may be wrong...but i'm pretty sure i'm not.

Those two situations are exactly why NL has bigger swings.

[kennyg1966 0]

It's a redundant question if you are practicing good BR management.

gotta agree

[Kauai Ducks 0]

Longtime lurker first post....I think there is a need to re-define 'variance' as maybe the OP or repliers are not on the same page.I understand variance to be: the short term swings/fluctuations in your bankroll (let's be honest, when we say "swings/fluctuations" we think of them in the downward direction only)That said, I'm not necessarily sure there is a right answer to this question, because it may really depend on your style of playing in the four respective games mentioned. Also it will depend on your proficiency in the four games.For me, I experience more variance in limit... but it may have to do to the fact that i'm horrible at limit.But based on definition, No limit would seem to give you the potential of highest variance because you can win/lose a lot of money (relative to the buy-in) in one hand. It doesn't get any shorter term than one hand....If one is looking for low variance... try playing limit O8B... at least in my experience that game has zero variance.

[PAYforUSC 0]

Longtime lurker first post....

this reminds me of when someone calls into a radio station and says, "Longtime listener, first time caller." :shock:

[econ_tim 0]

people confuse the answer to this question because they don't know what they are asking in the first placeif i said "which has more variance, no limit or limit?" you might say the $30/$60 limit game has more variance than the $0.5/$1 no limit game, but that is a silly comparison.alternatively, you might compare the variance in limit and no limit games that have the same blinds, e.g. the $100NL game and the $0.5/$1 limit game. But this isn't a great comparison either. By some accounts you need a bankroll of $2000 to play the no limit game and a bankroll of $300 to play the limit game.A better comparison would be a no limit game and a limit game with the same bankroll requirements. I think this yields, in order of decreasing variance:SH limitring limitSH no limitring no limit

[econ_tim 0]

If one is looking for low variance... try playing limit O8B... at least in my experience that game has zero variance.

error: 32471does not compute

[Suited_Up 2]

people confuse the answer to this question because they don't know what they are asking in the first placeif i said "which has more variance, no limit or limit?" you might say the $30/$60 limit game has more variance than the $0.5/$1 no limit game, but that is a silly comparison.alternatively, you might compare the variance in limit and no limit games that have the same blinds, e.g. the $100NL game and the $0.5/$1 limit game.  But this isn't a great comparison either.  By some accounts you need a bankroll of $2000 to play the no limit game and a bankroll of $300 to play the limit game.A better comparison would be a no limit game and a limit game with the same bankroll requirements. I think this yields, in order of decreasing variance:SH limitring limitSH no limitring no limit

Look at you, sounding all smart!As for me, I don't know the right answer. All I know, is that when I play limit I get very frustrated. What that means, I dunno.

[Wingmaster05 0]

So if FR no limit has the least variance, and most return, why are we playing Limit?

[Abbaddabba 0]

You need a smaller bankroll for comparable stakes at limit. (this is comparing variance between limit and no limit for stakes requiring identical bankrolls).Since he's comparing variance in terms of stakes that require identical bankrolls, you need to compare winrates in terms of that too.Ie: when you compare .50/1 NL to 2/4 LHE, the latter has higher variance based on dollar values. At the same time, a typical winning player will be making more at 2/4 LHE than you will at .5/1 NL.... or at the very least, it will be close.You can also multi table much more efficiently at limit.

[swahnroger 0]

It's a redundant question if you are practicing good BR management.

Agreed!But the reason that most people say that Limit is more profitable is because...well because it most likely is. If you play tight aggressive in Limit you can only make money...thats pretty much all there is to it.NL is all about picking your spots and taking advantage of weak opponents. To totally different situations. Limit is more stable of a money maker because you should you get drawn out on you only lose a few more bets.Non on the flipside of the coin...NL when you get outdrawn and all of your money is already in the pot...IE AA vs. KK and he/she spikes trips and takes it down. Now you've lost the maximum in a single hand.I think this is were people get that it has such a high variance. But what they don't see is that you're going to win in that situation a number of times so things will even out over time.Try this sometime if your a serious player. Use PT to calculate your playing stats for limit and NL.take 100K hands from both and see which one has more varience...i'm willing to bet that Limit will have more.I may be wrong...but i'm pretty sure i'm not.

Those two situations are exactly why NL has bigger swings.

Exactly!

[pbwl11 0]

As for me, I don't know the right answer. All I know, is that when I play limit I get very frustrated. What that means, I dunno.

It means that when you play a tight/aggressive game, and you get sucked out by the chasing donkeys playing 10 6 offsuit, you wanna reach across the table and slap them upside the head.....Welcome to my world. :twisted:

[AlanBostick 0]

I'm seeing a lot of mistaken thinking in the postings to this thread."Variance" has a quite specific meaning. It is not the case that a set of 100,000 hand histories (presumed to be the same sort of game, e.g. hands of $1-$2 limit hold'em at full tables) is going to have almost no variance. That's an absurd claim, and anyone who has any experience with statistics knows it to be nonsense. See the Wikipedia definition of "Variance" for more information.Asserting that comparing variance in limit HE and NLHE games is a "redundant" question if one is practicing good bankroll management is true, but only trivially true. Because in order to practice good bankroll management in the first place you need to have a good understanding of your win rates and variances in the games you play. This is known as "begging the question."It seems to me that the proper standard for comparing the variance of different games is to adjust for win rate. Say you have a lot of hand histories playing 4-handed $3-$6 limit hold'em and also a lot of hand-histories playing 9-handed $0.10-$0.25-blind, $25-maximum-buy-in. Let's say that it turns out that your win rate in the limit game is $9.43 per hundred hands ($0.0943 per hand) and in the no-limit game your win rate is $12.57 per hundred hands ($0.1257 per hand). If you want to compare the variances of your results in these two games, you would divide the net results of every hand in the limit dataset by 0.0943 and the net results of every hand in the no-limit dataset by 0.1257. Then compute your statistics in the usual way.As an aside, the variance of your NLHE results are going to depend critically on a certain aspect of your game selection. If you choose games where the other players have stacks of the maximum buy-in or less, then that puts an upper limit on the size your stack can change, win or loss, in a single hand. Even when you grow your own stack, as the other players bust out and are replaced by new ones, the maximum buy-in limits how much you can win or lose in a hand. Contrariwise, in a game where other players have very large stacks, you can win or lose very large pots. The nature of variance is that a single large result can dominate over many, many small results.Read up on basic probabliity and statistics. Doing so is very useful to improving your understanding both the game of poker and of bankroll management.

[Mattnxtc 0]

most varianceSH NL HESH LHEFR NL HEFR LHEIMO

if we are talkin short run maybe....but in long run NL has much lower variance