no limit vs limit stress comparison

[EmperorNorth]

This is, I think a very good post. I think that persuing NL is in my future and this post made me know why, to stay engaged in the game.
Thanks.http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/icons/cool.gif
cool

[Cerril]

To a pretty large degree, that's actually true. With good play your overall variance on a session by session basis is a bit smaller at no limit, because of the control you can exercise.

Thing is, I get more stressed at NL due to the variance on a hand-by-hand basis, where your entire stack can be at risky from a terrible mistake, where it takes a series of terrible mistakes to even harm a small portion of your stack.

[mosch]

That is what he is saying, and he is correct.

[mrkilla]

the 5/10 is the "big" game there. 500 Min buy-in no Max
The smaller NL is correct 40 min / 100 max 1/2 blinds. They usually have 2 or 3 tables going of that. The bigger game usually has a list gonig for it and doesnt get started on weekedays [In my experience there] and starts late afternoon on Weekends.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"That is what he is saying, and he is correct."

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you are both wrong.

I'll let Mason elaborate:

"In Gambling Theory and Other Topics, I show that an individual's bankroll is predicated on two parameters. The first is your win rate, and the second is the standard deviation, which is the statistical measure of short-term luck (also known as fluctuations) that is present in a game. It is the relationship between these two parameters that determines one's bankroll requirements. Even though it is true that the standard deviation is larger in no-limit hold 'em [than in limit hold 'em], the real expert also will have a much larger win rate, meaning that he probably won't need as much money to ensure survival."[/i]

: from p. 84 of Poker Essays, 1991.

Emphasis added.

[felson]

They meant variance relative to win rate for a good player. Technically you are correct, NL can be high variance. But for a given winrate, a good NL player needs a smaller bankroll than a good limit player. Just like Mason says in the passage you quoted.

Bottom line is: if you're worried about variance, play NL.

[Triumph36]

I play NL and I can't even fathom playing limit anymore. The problem I have with limit is that one little mistake per hour destroys one's profits. Granted I haven't read SSH and I haven't looked at THFAP in a long time, but I feel that I get very stressed over little decisions both in NL and Limit. Whether or not to call with Ax suited in middle position in an unraised pot in NL, whether to call J9 suited in the small blind, these decisions are serious to me. But I know exactly when I can and cannot play trap hands like KQ, KT, JT, and so on in NL.

The bigger decisions involving large portions of my stack, I make pretty quickly and easily.

I feel I have enough of an advantage over my adversaries at NL that most pre-flop decisions are made easily. I also that playing good no-limit poker involves figuring out what one's opponent has, and I think most of my opponents fail to figure out what I have, costing themselves a lot more money by not betting enough than I end up costing myself by making loose or weak calls.

As for variance, I've usually been playing on a light bankroll but rarely have to rebuy. I get the sense that all of the 'correct' decisions fish make in limit vs. the incorrect ones they make in no limit end up making for higher variance in limit games.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
They meant variance relative to win rate for a good player.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, if you say so... [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]