[siegfriedandroy]

perhaps (in reference to my just completed post) i should reevaluate whether my time is best spent at limit. i have read most of harrington's book, and find most of that info pretty basic. lately whenever i play, i will screw around with the 100 buy in no limit game (just as a diversion from multitabling limit), and it seems the game is extraordinarily great. but perhaps this is simply comparable to the typical, 8 to the flop fishfest in limit anywhere below 10/20 or so.

1) ballpark, what limit is $100 nl comparable to in limit? what can a good player expect in such games if favorable (i.e. 1.5-2.5ish bb/100 in limit)

2) with the best games at this level, with horrible players habitually risking their entire stacks with mediocre holdings, etc., is nut - peddling a reasonable, legit strategy? to me this game seems comparable to a low limit 4/8 game at the bike, where 70% see the flop with sh*t and play terribly after. in such a game i would never bluff. in the nl game, i bluff occassionally (but still rarely) and only in certain, low risk situations. so far ive done well nutpeddlling, but only over a small sample. basically, i am curious as to generally how far nut peddling can take you in no limit (especially online, which brings me to #3...)

3) online no limit - please briefly sketch to me (a nl noob) how the nl game generally differs between live and online. i assume more aggressive, just like limit? also, how many tables can the best pros play without reaching diminishing returns?

4) changing gears - i read on that 'basic strategy nl' post a couple days ago that changing gears is bad advice. why? doesnt harrington advocate this in his book?

5) harrington's book: in the past i read that harrington's book applies equally well to tourneys and cash games, even though the book discusses almost strictly tourney examples. is this true? lehigh guy said no. if not, then what are, and where can i find, a brief synopsis of the general differences between cash and tourneys?

6) good lags - apparently, some people who play like maniacs can be good nl players (which i believe could almost never be true in limit - at least if you're seeing like 1/2 the flops, raising 1/3 of the time, etc). what is the best way to learn about (and consider implementing) such technique? or at least, what are some good ways to spot whether or not a particular lag in my game is good or fish? i assume that some plays are so blatantly 'bad' as to offer pretty good evidence. but what is a good way to recognize sharks who simply play (very well) with such a style?

7) thank you