|
|
#11
07-31-2006, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: limit vs nlh
so for 1/2 limit SH you need a 1k roll and if you make 2bb/100 you are making $4/100. A limit player can play 600 hands an hour(6tables) so that's $16 + decent rb an hour. About 25 an hour.
I don't play NL but i guess it is harder to 6 table NL short then it is to 6 table Limit short. So say 5 tables gets you $15 plus less RB. Is that about 18 to 20 an hour? I've never played NL other then for casual purposes. anyone have some info on 50nl wages with their rb? 
|
|
#12
07-31-2006, 10:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit vs nlh
[ QUOTE ]
(Though, yes, in terms of bankroll req's, 2/4 and 100NL are similar) [/ QUOTE ] 20 buys in properly rolled for NL (2k at 100NL. 300bb is properly rolled for limit $1,200 at 2/4). IMO anyhow... probably a little bigger for limit if shorthanded.
|
|
#13
07-31-2006, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit vs nlh
So what you are saying is that the winrate is comparable between $2-4 Limit and $100NL. I have run at 3.5BB/100 over the last 20,000 hands playing $2-4 so it must be positive variance right? and I am still not convinced that no limit has less variance than limit, has anyone got statistical data to prove this? I am not trying to start an argument I just feel that the times I have played NL there seems to be huge swings in my bankroll, wouldn't this indicate an increase in variance or is it just a function of my no limit play.
|
|
#14
07-31-2006, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit vs nlh
From what i have gathered from other posters:
the variance in short samples for NL can be bigger. But after 20k hands an NL winrate should be close to what will be the next 20k hands. Limit however, you can play 20k hands at 3.5bb/100 and play the next 20khands at .9bb/100. Some limit players will have 2 100k hand samples that vary considerably sometimes. Can't really tell if that is a change in play/game softness unless it's within a short time span probably.
|
|
#15
07-31-2006, 11:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: limit vs nlh
[ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying is that the winrate is comparable between $2-4 Limit and $100NL. I have run at 3.5BB/100 over the last 20,000 hands playing $2-4 so it must be positive variance right? and I am still not convinced that no limit has less variance than limit, has anyone got statistical data to prove this? I am not trying to start an argument I just feel that the times I have played NL there seems to be huge swings in my bankroll, wouldn't this indicate an increase in variance or is it just a function of my no limit play. [/ QUOTE ] I always thought NL made significantly more, but I'm beginning to think that it's fairly close. Just anecdotally, when I look at the BBV graphs, the big $$ are most often put up by the NL players. (Even at modest stakes) Could be biased however. As for the comment about multitabling each, based on my own limited experience with NL, I personally think it is easier to multitable NL. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] (Though, yes, in terms of bankroll req's, 2/4 and 100NL are similar) [/ QUOTE ] 20 buys in properly rolled for NL (2k at 100NL. 300bb is properly rolled for limit $1,200 at 2/4). IMO anyhow... probably a little bigger for limit if shorthanded. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, The gold standard for shorthanded is 500BB.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
