Why do you play no-limit? Why do you play limit?

It looks like we have the same problem in opposite games. Good luck to you in NL [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[gabbahh]

So to summarize:
According to some limit is more boring
According to others no limit is more boring
Some consider limit to be more difficult
Others auto play 8 limit tables
Some say limit has the highest variance
Others claim this for no limit

As far as I can tell: most play the game which suits them best and think the other game (being limit or no limit) is "worse".

Has anyone of you looked at the mathematical definition of variance? If so, can you still claim that limit has higher variance? Because I think it is not possible for a limit (fixed sized bets) betting game to have higher variance than the same mathematical game with variable bet sizes.

A 300 bb downswing in limit is pretty rare for a good player, and will take a very long time to overcome. In no limit a 300 bb "downswing" can occur in a few hands. For example getting your entire stack all in pre flop with AA and lose to JQ or crap. The same goes for upswings.
So following this line of thought combined with the formula for variance, I'd say that no limit is more swingier.

Please prove me wrong.

[JTMoney42]

Limit!

I get to value bet ace high!

Fixed is basicly the same as NL, though the swings are higher both direction. Results are the same depending on your skill level. (OF course I don't have any evidence to proof which one is more profitable in the long run, but I just don't beliave there to be any difference)

Limit is brains, NL is balls.

I play limit, 'cos I got castruated at the NL tables.

I feel like I have a lot more control at NL. And my variance is usually pretty low b/c I play quite conservatively (and it works at small stakes). However, it can get pretty boring waiting for that "action" hand, so I need to 8 table just to keep myself occupied.

Recently I haven't been doing well in limit, and thus the variance has been a biotch. However, I like the speed of 6-max limit and all the betting...but for some reason I just don't seem to have a knack for it (even though my strongest point is math). And I can't figure out if it's b/c I'm too aggressive or not aggressive enough, if I fold too much or what. I've been beating the $1/$2 6-max tables at Party, but am losing quite significantly at the $1/$2 5-max tables at PokerRoom, and am wondering if it's that much more difficult or if it's just variance.