Q for Sklansky...which tourneys are most profitable?

[tipperdog]

In TPFAP, you stated (I'm summarizing here) that NL Hold 'Em tourneys are more profitable for excellent players because the casual player opposition is likely to have little NL ring game experience (NL is "dead") and tourney experience is hard to garner in significant quanitity. By contrast, you wrote, such opposition is likely to have significant limit game cash game experience that will benefit them to some degree in a limit tourney.

Obviously, this no longer describes the state of poker. NL cash games (albeit limited buy-in games) are thriving and tourney poker is everywhere.

Given the changes in the environment, do you still believe that NL tourneys are most profitable for the above-average player? For a variety of reasons, I've come to think that limit tourneys are more profitable. However, I'm very interested in your thoughts and those of the other tourney players on the board.

[TomCollins]

Luck is by far a bigger factor in limit tourneys than no limit tourneys. This is because players will have less variance in NL than limit. It all depends on the tournament structure though.