Originally Posted by only_bridge
Lol, my major is mathematics.
I probably read more statistics at university than anyone else on this site.
Let me give you a simple example so you can understand.
Lets say you have two tourneys, with equal structure, and the same number of participants. One being limit and the other beeing no limit.
Which one do you think will end first?
You should think more than read
Losing or winning big in no limit does not mean that the game has bigger variance.
Limit holdem is actually very high variance and that's why no one really wins or loses big. The very high variance lowers the skill edges, so everyone is about break-even or losing because of the rake. Casinos
love high variance games because everyone has fun and plays every hand and finally the only winner is the house via rake.
No limit holdem allows you to win a lot with the best hand and lose virtually nothing when you don't hit the flop. If you are bad - you will lose a lot quickly , but variance is not the reason - it's the skill.
You can check out this math:
Let's say you play 1000 no limit hands on 6 max tables for a day
You will be posting blinds for 166 orbits x 1.5BB per orbit = 249BB
You will be dealt on average 5 times AA and 5 times KK. It's very unlikely that you don't win more than 250BB with those monsters only and finish the session as a winner, but most players will finish as losers because they will play a lot of hands and they will play them bad.... Even a complete nit who plays only AA and KK can be one 100BB stack winner for 1K hands on micro stakes. It's all skill , cards do not matter.