Better ROI with micro, low, mid, or high limit poker?

[TenPercenter]

I'd like to hear your opinion in this poll I posted in the Micro limit forum.

Ten

[Here2Learn1982]

in case you haven't noticed this is NO LIMIT section, so please post LIMIT polls/questions in correct section. Thanks

[turnipmonster]

one thing I have never really understood is ROI in regards to cash game poker. in tournament poker I can understand it, your investment is your buyin. but in a cash game, especially in limit, it seems sort of weird. in that case your investment should be the total money you put into all the pots you played, and how much money you made off that money. is this correct? if so, it seems like a not too useful statistic for cash games as compared to something like hourly rate. anyone?

--turnipmonster

[Justin A]

turnipmonster,

I think the question is getting at your investment being your bankroll. It's not really ROI, because you're not investing most of your bankroll, but I think that's the point of the post.

I posted this elsewhere also, but I think that micro limit NL games are tougher than the low limit games. So my vote goes to low limit games. Seems like lots of the micro players are on the last of their bankroll and are desperately trying for a comeback.

Justin A

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not really ROI, because you're not investing most of your bankroll

[/ QUOTE ]

I am mainly curious because financial type people who find out I play are always asking me what my ROI is. it just doesn't make a lot of sense for me to think about it that way, especially in regards to cash games.

--turnipmonster

[pilamsolo]

I think that finance types tend to think of poker as a type of passive investing and don't connect profits with the amount of time spent playing. I had this same conversation with a friend of mine and we finally agreed that you can't look at poker playing as investing as such unless you're thinking in the context of a backer.

For what it's worth...