NL vs. Limit variance

[Duck Rabbit]

I have read in a lot of people's posts that there is lower variance in NL ring games (particularly 6max?) than in the limit ring games. This just doesn't make sense to me. The way I am thinking about it is that in NL, your entire stack is at risk on every hand. With limit holdem, you are probably only risking 4-5 BB's for a particular hand.

Is there any reason why NL is considered to have a lower variance than limit? Any explanations would be helpful.

[soko]

Depends on your style of play, your skill level, and what the skill level of your opponents are.

[WhiteWolf]

Most of the posts are based on people's experience. Winrates for good NL players can be 5 times that of good limit players when expressed in BB/100, whereas the variance expressed in the same units tend to be about 3 times higher in NL compared to limit. So, for a NL player to get a comparable winrate in dollars as a limit player, he will play where the BB (big bet, which, in Poker Tracker terms, is twice the no-limit big blind) is 1/5 that of the limit player's BB. At this level, the NL player's variance in absolute dollars will be about 60% that of the limit player's variance. Your individual results may vary depending on your winrate (which varies a lot from player to player) and variance (which tend to run around the same values for all players).

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the posts are based on people's experience. Winrates for good NL players can be 5 times that of good limit players when expressed in BB/100, whereas the variance expressed in the same units tend to be about 3 times higher in NL compared to limit. So, for a NL player to get a comparable winrate in dollars as a limit player, he will play where the BB (big bet, which, in Poker Tracker terms, is twice the no-limit big blind) is 1/5 that of the limit player's BB. At this level, the NL player's variance in absolute dollars will be about 60% that of the limit player's variance. Your individual results may vary depending on your winrate (which varies a lot from player to player) and variance (which tend to run around the same values for all players).

[/ QUOTE ]

So a 1/2 NL would be comparable to a 10/20 Limit with a little over half the vairance of limit?

Nutpeddling is low variance BTW.

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
So a 1/2 NL would be comparable to a 10/20 Limit with a little over half the vairance of limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that the numbers I quoted apply at micro- and low-limit levels. The relative winrates may change when you start getting into the mid- and high-limits.

[chicagoY]

Yeah, there's no way the NL 600 guys expect a 5xBB winrate unlike the NL 25ers.

[BillC]

You need to clarify whether you mean standard deviation or variance (the square of SD, measured in doolars squared).

You also need to give an idea of sample size.

[shmoosh]

One factor to consider also is that you are more at the mercy of the cards in limit hold em. Good Pot and No-limit players can win pots without having to show down a hand many times. You can also do so at limit but much less frequently. The vast majority of the time you will have to show down a hand. An incredibly cold run of cards could be more detrimental to your winrate.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
The way I am thinking about it is that in NL, your entire stack is at risk on every hand. With limit holdem, you are probably only risking 4-5 BB's for a particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

In NL the good player can invest his whole stack when he is pretty sure he is ahead. The FL player can only raise 1BB when same thing happens.

When they stop showing NL at television most bad players will stop playing NL at higher limits, they lose their money to fast and dont hit enough long good runs, so they will not think its fun. (but they will keep on playing tourneys, because anyone can hit a run of cards good enough to win a sitandgo).