Although the debate about which form of holdem (limit or NL) has greater variance has been interesting, the answer is not subjective. The results of average play over many millions of hands has objectively determined that over the LONG RUN no-limit holdem has a MUCH lower variance. However, over the very short-term the variance can be higher in No-Limit. But as we all know results need to be taken over the long term. If an individuals results do not conform to the norm then they are either doing something very right or very wrong.

Also, most of the top pro's prefer no-limit to limit. However, because their advantage is so much greater at no-limit it can get very difficult to find a high stakes no-limit game. A wealthy fish can hang onto his $$ a little longer at limit and if he gets a good run of cards he has a better chance of winning some $$. At no-limit a top pro wins more than 70% of the sessions he plays in. At limit even the best pro is unlikely to win more than 55% of the sessions he plays.

So it's easy to see that at limit, small edges need to be pushed where at no-limit a player can, and should, wait to push his bigger hands. The small edges that need to be pushed at limit could turn into disasters at no-limit.

Lou