Limit varience vs No Limit varience

[phydaux]

Like probably most new players, I went with Limit Hold'em thinking that Limit would offer less varience that No Limit.

However, I've seen several knowledgeable posters saying that No Limit has a lower varience.

I've thought that over in my mind, and I think I understand why that may be.

Without getting into a lot of math and examples, I'd like to ask a question, and you calculator jockies can tell me if I've got it right or not.

If we look at varience like it was a sine wave (radio wave), can it be said that No Limit has a higher frequency but a lower amplitude, while Limit has a lower frequency but a higher amplitude?

Keep in mind, I don't know that much about higher math, just a little something about basic electronics (and a wee-bit about poker as well /images/graemlins/wink.gif).

Am I on the right track, or am I way off?

[neverforgetlol]

Limit has more variance because you play a lot more hands.

[PokerEveryDay]

Other way around regarding your sine wave theory.

[PokerEveryDay]

1 table (9 or 10) NL SNG's should have the least variance of them all.

[billygrippo]

[ QUOTE ]
1 table (9 or 10) NL SNG's should have the least variance of them all.

[/ QUOTE ]

i find this hard to belive lol.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

If we look at varience like it was a sine wave (radio wave), can it be said that No Limit has a higher frequency but a lower amplitude, while Limit has a lower frequency but a higher amplitude?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

NL with a $20 big blind has greater variance than penny-ante limit. Limit with a $4000 big blind has greater variance than NL $100. For a fair comparison, knowledgeable players suggest matching the win rates of good players. (The naive comparison of matching the blinds is useless.) In practice, experts playing NL $100 can have the win rate of $5-$10 limit with the variance of $3-$6 limit. It may be that this does not scale.