[DrVanNostrin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I recall correctly, the variance for limit tends to be higher because you'll get the odds to call to draws much more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't playing more draws mean that you're more likely to complete your hand the expected percentage of the time, reducing variance?

Don't NLHE's occasional large pots, where you can win or lose a buyin or more in one hand, lead to more variance?

I'm not sure that I'm right... if I'm wrong please enlighten me. There's only one thing that I'm sure about, which is that PLO is most luck reliant. It's crazy how often two players are correct to raise and reraise each other all in on the flop, and then a coinflip decides a buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly a NL game with blinds of 1 and 2 will have more variance than a limit game with the same blinds. The key to answering this question is to find a limit game and a NL game where experts have the same win rate, then compare the variances of those games. Of course it's very difficult say what an expert is and what one would expect to make.

Several years ago when there were a bunch of limit books out there and no one knew anything about NL, NL would have been the game with "less variance". Now that NL games are getting tougher that might not be true.

Another useful statistic is the coefficient of variation (this is the standard deviation per 100 divided by win rate per 100). You could think of it as the luck to skill ratio. It should be noted that this number is a function of the number of hands. (By that I mean the coefficient of varation per 100 does not equal the coefficient of varation per 200).