I can tell you my standard deviation at 5/10 6max is close to 20BB/100 over 50k hands.

If 5/10 is equated to 100NL, thats 2 buyins per hundred hands. Even if you equate to 200 NL, thats 1 buyin/100.

Limit is clearly more variance ridden. I still think its the more profitable of the two, but thats another debate.

I agree with you Kuso taking one here might be right. Depending on the action on the turn it may also become incorrect to continue with the hand also. But the underlying theme of the thread is which game has more swings in it. It's not that I mind discussing the differences in the game, let's face ot they are basically 2 totally different games.

However I have yet to see overwhelming proof of which one has more swings in it. People have said they feel one may have more than the other, however few people have given much in terms of evidence. I will say my SD/100 in NL (which is only a small sample and from the micro limits) is 68.2. Which to me seems higher than almost anything I've seen for LHE, 6max or full ring. Now the guys from the old forum know I've admitted this before, I'm not a math guy....honestly I suck at it. (I know good thing I play poker). Now maybe I'm misapplying SD/100, in simpleton terms (which is what I like). I was under the impression that the higher the SD/100 the more variance you can expect.

So if an average SD/100 for NL is lets say 50... and for LHE it's 20 wouldn't NL have more variance? Or am I completely missing something in the equation?

SD in this case is deviation from the win rate, so you need to include the win rate in your comparison. If typical numbers for limit are a win rate of 2BB/100 and SD of 15BB/100, and typical numbers for NL are a win rate of 10BB/100 and SD of 50BB/100, then limit has greater variance, for example.

FWIW my full ring limit SD is 13BB/100 and my 6max is just shy of 15 (small sample size tho).