Re-examination of lower variance games

[italianstang]

A few weeks ago there was a post on here discussing which game/games have the lowest variance. I was surprised to see that many people thought no-limit games had a lower variance than limit games. Last week playing in a live no limit game at Morongo I had about $300, most of the table had $200 or so and one guy had a few thousand. In the big blind I checked with J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and there were five-ish callers preflop. The board was 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. I checked it down along with everyone else all the way to the river when I made a jack and a full house. On the river the big stack at the table bet $40 and I moved all in, he called immidiately with Ace-Deuce and a flopped full house. I am not writing this to complain about a bad beat, I am simply writing it to say that this seems like a hand that anyone would have lost their stack with, but if it was limit I would not have lost nearly as much. Wouldn't that be an example of why no-limit is a higher variance game?