Very interesting thoughts here... thank you.

Do you folks mostly specialize in one or the other; Limit or No-Limit.? Do you think that there are players whose "personality" lends it self to one or the other?

I read the Miller-Sklansky book, a couple times, and it was terrific and I learned a lot. But I couldn't help thinking as I read it that Limit is a very long-term "grinder" kind of game... much like card-counting in BlackJack (been there done that). Yes, you have an advantage and yes you can win, but it is almost like watching grass grow in terms of enjoyment.

My objectives are only to be a winning recreational low-stakes player. In 3 months, I've taken $25 to $280 playing nickel-dime NL and some $5 MTTs (7 tourneys, 3 ITMs). In this nickel-dime league (admittedly the low minor leagues) I would guess I'm in the top quartile skill-wise; and as (if) my bankroll grows, I plan to move up in stakes. At $375 bankroll, I plan to move to dime-quarter.

I just find NL provides more playing enjoyment and have convinced myself it is a better "fit" for my personality and objectives.

Does this make sense? Have others gone through a similar self-analysis?