2/5 NL vs 20/40 Limit

[emerson]

Against typical line-ups found in B&M card rooms today, which of these two games should be more profitable for a decent player?

[stigmata]

i figure it's reasonably similar, but the NL player will need a smaller bankroll.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
i figure it's reasonably similar, but the NL player will need a smaller bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. So you feel NL is a better return on investment. The next question would be what level of NL game could a properly bankrolled 20/40 limit player afford for approximately the same level of risk?

[Zele]

It's really hard to say because SD's (and of course winrates!) can differ significantly among players, especially at NL, and a seemingly small difference in SD can make a huge difference in risk-of-ruin.

Conventional wisdom is that 300bb is a bad but not astronomical losing streak at limit, and that 20bi is a bad but not astronomical losing streak at NL, so 2/5 is probably closer to 15/30.

As stigmata alludes to, the comparison is kind of apples-and-orangey because at these stakes a NL expert will have a much more favorable ratio of WR/SD than a limit expert.

[bobbyi]

Different NL games have different structures, so there isn't really enough information here to compare the games. I think it go either way depending on the details of the actual games.

For example, I've seen a lot of casino 2/5 games where the max buyin is like $200 and the average stack size isn't much more than that and they seem to deal about seven hands an hour. For a game like that, I doubt that there is more money to be made than in a good 20/40 limit game.