Compare winrates of NL to limit, which can I make more $ multi-tabling

Lets compare winrates for NL and limit.

I went to the NL forum at 2+2 to see what a good winrate is for NL...looks like 8ptbb/100 is a good rate (according to the FAQ stciky). so you would need a $1000 bankroll to play .25-.50 NL. 8ptbb/100 would = $4

Compare that to 2-4 limit where you wold need a $1200 bankroll. a good winrate is 2bb/100.
That would = $8 per 100 hands.

So clearly there is way more $$$ in limit than NL.

Are any of my #'s off? how many hands can you play in an hour at a NL table? At a limit table, you will play 70 hands per hr on average.

[scrapperdog]

Umm if you are gonna base what game you play on logic like this you are in trouble... There are huge differences in the game, you should play limit or no limit based on which of these games fit your playing style and which of these games you enjoy more.

Statements like "clearly there is way more $$$ in limit than NL" are way off base. Might be true if you are an excellent limit player. Wont be true if you are an excellent NL player. Either way a blanket statement like this makes no sense...

I am simply comparing a winning player at NL to a winning player at limit. The purpose of this thread is to understand winrates, not to persuade anybody to play one game or another.

[HolyBejeesus]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets compare winrates for NL and limit.

I went to the NL forum at 2+2 to see what a good winrate is for NL...looks like 8ptbb/100 is a good rate (according to the FAQ stciky). so you would need a $1000 bankroll to play .25-.50 NL. 8ptbb/100 would = $4


[/ QUOTE ]

A PTBB is twice the bigblind, or $1 at .25-.50, so 8ptbb/100 = $8.

[PinkSteel]

[ QUOTE ]
So clearly there is way more $$$ in limit than NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure the math is a useful exercise, and I'm sure variance differs given game structure, but...

Do any of you educated people out there really believe that if the assertion

"Clearly there is way more $$$ in X than in Y"

were true, that skilled players would not be flocking to X and abandoning Y?

Access to each game is completely open. Anyone out there who plays to win must be thinking about win rates and return on time and money invested.

I know it sounds like a lazy answer, but surely supply and demand of fish/skilled players must have balanced out win rates somewhat between limit and no-limit? After allowing for possibly different variance of return of course; a higher variance game will demand a higher long term return (ref. T-bills vs. penny stocks).

[afreeman]

IMO, NL requires more focus than limit to play well. In limit, the correct play is more mechanical; in NL, the correct play is more often a function of reads and opponent observation.

So if you're looking strictly for the maximum hourly rate at the lowest-limit tables, you're probably better off at limit, since you can sustain a higher winrate while multi-tabling.

Well I lost money at limit (small sample, and I was just learning to play poker), and now I have a 13PTBB/100 winrate at 25NL over 13k hands.

I'd say I prefer NL - but maybe I am just really crap at limit. Definitely depends on the person.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Yeah, your math is wrong and your premise is flawed. There is definitely more money to be made in NL because the best NL player in the world can make like 15PTBB/100 and the best limit player in the world can still only pull down 3PTBB/100 or whatever in the highest respective games on Party, for instance.

[Wardfish]

I think you could afford to play higher than 25c-50c NL if you had a $1200 bankroll (comparison you gave for the $2-$4 limit game), assuming that you can beat the game for 8 PTBB/100.

I think a more realistic level would be 50c-$1 NL. At this level your 8 PTBB/100 is worth $16.

Some people may argue that you cannot sustain playing at any level with only 1200 big blinds as bankroll, but that is a another issue. I make the assumption that you do not cash out all of your winnings, and do not jump up to the next level.

Also, I am guessing but I reckon you can expect to average between 60-80 hands per hour playing NL.

[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
I am simply comparing a winning player at NL to a winning player at limit. The purpose of this thread is to understand winrates, not to persuade anybody to play one game or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your skill was exactly the same in both maybe you could make an argument like this. I have yet to see a player that has exactly the same skill in both games, except for the ones that are really really bad at both. They are 2 different games that require 2 different skill set, and you should play the one that matches your skill set.