limit vs no limit

Alright, this question may not have an answer but I am curious enough to ask anyway. I play both limit and NL hold em and like them both. I was wondering if there are any statistics out there to show on average, assuming that the player is experienced and consistent, that he will generally win/lose more money in the long haul on either limit or no limit. Basically I'm looking to see if there is an advantage to playing one over the other or if it's just personal preference. I hope this makes sense.

Personal Preference

The biggest games are limit.

Until you reach the biggest games, it down't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demiparadigm

The biggest games are limit.

---

Tell that to Prahlad Friedman who was stuck an estimated $400K playing 200/400 NL earlier this week or Daniel Neagreanu who was stuck for more at one point playing 300/600 NL the week before.

Nagranue has been stuck for over a million playing limit before.

You need to figure out which one *you are better at. Unless you are a perfect cross-section of all poker players, the "average" profit in the two games is meaningless.

nl is the funnest

the most profitable assuming you're good at it would probably be shorthanded limit but it also has the biggest swings.

Limit is good because you can't lose your stack in one hand.Also the swings aren't as bad per hand BUT the swings over a stretch can be nasty.

NL the bad players will also die out quicker.And requires a bit more skill in certain areas.Limit allows for some autopilot mode but eventually that can be bad too.

It trully is personal preference though.Same as why you would choose Stud or Omaha.