NL v. limit

You could debate this until the end of time. If you are willing to grind it out in order to slowly - but steadily - build your role I think limit is a much more probitable game. In no-limit, a single mistake can destroy a bankroll you just worked for the past 8 hours building up. That is why all the big money players - with a few exceptions - stick to playing limit in cash games. That is why until the big poker wave hit, you rarely saw people playing no-limt cash games. Obviously, if you are far more skilled than your opponent, no-limit is likey the better game because your hourly rate will likely be much larger. So, as is the answer with every poker question, "It all depends."

[ QUOTE ]
That is why all the big money players - with a few exceptions - stick to playing limit in cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong, so don't misinterpret this post. From my understanding, they do occasionally include No Limit Hold 'em in The Big Game, especially when the raise the stakes. Also, Doyle Brunson has been playing NL as long as he's been playing. In his book, Barry Greenstein refers to playing NL cash games years ago, so, I don't think it's as uncommon as many would make it seem, just that limit has always been much more popular until recently, but it seems that there has always been a NL game and, now, there always will be.