I played limit for a long long time and I just cannot seem to get good at the game! I don't fully understand why as I am a good NL tournament player and have cashed 1st, 3rd, a few final tables in some of the 2,000 player tournies $20 and $50.
For a long time I would cash in tournies and then eventually waste the money playing limit.
I've read loads of books on limit, SSLHE, real play, WITHE, but I just can't seem to apply the same poker play and the theory into a winning game.
Also I suck at 6max and can only play decently at full ring, which seems to be a disadvantage in the modern game as everyone wants to play 6 max!

Has anyone else experienced worse play in cash games than tournaments?
I think for sure some of it is that I used to move up levels too soon rather than challenging myself to move up gradually but I've played enough hands to know that I'm doing something wring at limit that I don't do in the tournies.
I'm wondering if I should cut out my cash game all together but I don;t always have the time for a nightly 6hr tournament!.
Maybe NL cash plays better than limit or maybe PLO?

rake wins in limit imho.

Limit is a game of many many small edges, and to win at this format, you have to approach it sort of like an 'extreme couponing' champion. Find every small edge, sliver of money, or weak spot you can - and exploit it. It is difficult to maintain this high level of concentration for extended periods of time, so I regularly take breaks every 2 hours at the least. g'luck

live, online, stakes? sample size, results?

And sample hands that resemble how you play certain spots?

I don't have the database anymore, I'd have to get the HHs from the site but I've played poker for over 7 years so I know my limit game was not profitable.
All online...
Maybe NL is my game, difficult to say why exactly...

if you care to PM me any of your screennames i can tell you if i remember them or i can look them up in my DB and give you any reads/info/notes i had on any of them

LHE has certainly gotten harder over the years, especially online, just like many of the other games have, such as NLHE. if poker is a hobby for you ie your main reason for playing is fun, then imo you should play the variants that you enjoy the most

I went thru something similar myself. "I've read all the books, I'm a pretty smart dude, I know these guys are playing bad, I do we'll in early stages of tourney ESP, why can't I beat cash games?"
I posted some of my play on a site and everyone was telling me I should actually move UP to higher stakes games. I thought that was strange but I did it and started winning.
Maybe your approach to the game makes you better fit for one stake vs another, I'd try experimenting with different stakes till you find the one that fits. Not so high you can't be competitive not so low that you don't understand the players mind sets. Not so high that you risk your bankroll, not so low you can't beat the rake.
Gl

In extremely rare cases or with really high rake, maybe. I think Lock and Bodog might be the remaining US-facing sites with unbeatable lower rake structures. Merge is fixed and Stars/Tilt were always beatable. I'm not sure if Party can be beaten much smaller than 10/20, but it could be that I've heard/remembered wrong.

Going back to previous posts, it seems like our OP is London based. If you play on Stars every limit is more beatable than the last. If you can't crush the micros, small stakes is likely impossible to beat. I also saw that our OP posted in the SSSH stats thread playing like 22/17 6m stats a while ago. Games are now tough enough that playing poorly PF may make wiling hard. Tight TAG might be a tiny winner, but variance will be crushing if he still plays that way.