[dd323]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What a f*cking retard you are. Did you come to this site to learn something or just act like a moron?

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the thing, he may act like a moron, and be unable to logically defend his statement, but in today's online NL games, from many different great players' perspectives, the variance compared to limit is greater. period.

the reason is because of the large all in bets/bluffs/calls that are now commonplace in that area, combined with the lack of tells other than betting patterns and speeds online (where good pros can seriously reduce variance by eliminating large calls or winning pots that wouldn't have been theirs). and the frequency therein. what is a good stdev in bb/100 hands at limit? i know "good" is like 15-16 and excellent is below that.

what about NL in PTBB/100 hands?? its like more than double that, like 35-45 from what i know. now i may be wrong here and you can correct me if i am but from what i understand, PTBB is 2xthe big blind. so if you play 20/40 limit you suffer 40*15-16 swings per hundred hands on average. at NL, you suffer 40*35-45 at 10/20 blinds.

clearly, if my understanding of poker tracker estimations of the variance in the above games is correct, variance is now way larger in no limit than in limit.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

Barron,

From what I have seen in discussions of this is that at the highest limits, short handed, variance is now approaching the level of limit holdem in NL because of the prevelance of hugh overbet bluffs/monsters. Also, I think its closer in capped buying games, especially where you are short stack at buyin (for instance Los Angeles live SS NL games), but this is just from my experience that you need to build a stack at some point fairly early.

I have never seen anyone say that NL has a much higher variance than limit at any level. I will try to search for the thread on this in HSNL, but that was what I thought the concensus was there.