The old motto is never leave a good game, Sklansky talks a lot about this in his books, but I think most of his books came out before almost all games were NLHE. This makes perfect sense when in limit the amount In front of you is irrelevent. It makes no difference if you play the next hand today with a million in front of you, or tomorrow with only 2k after youve taken a large profit off the table. In limit you can only lose a certain amount of bets. This changes dramatically when talking about NLHE. To put some numbers into an example, lets say 5/10 nlhe is your main game and you run it up to 3500 and the game suddenly gets great. Everyone has you covered and the game is wild. Is it wise to cashout. In NLHE if you are always covered you are bound to go broke eventuslly. If you never take profit you put yourself in a tournament scenario where you either win a huge amount or leave with nothing ( obviously the game can break or gets bad and you leave but you get the point). Without going into every single scenario, what are your guys thoughts on taking profits in NLHE and PLO vs a limit game

This is not a new concept. There are some bankroll management guidelines that dictate cashing out of a game if you have more than 10% of your bankroll on the table and someone has you covered.

Whether you draw the line at 7.5%, 10%, or 15%, the general principal is the same. In a pot limit or no limit game, your entire stack is at risk if someone has you covered, and there is a limit to how much of your bankroll you should place at risk.

For similar reasons, the guidelines suggest not buying in to a cash game for more than 5% of your bankroll.

If you are a big winner in a great nlh game to the point that the money in front of you is a higher percentage of your total bankroll than you feel comfortable risking, it is still probably wrong to quit even if everyone has you covered. That's because the formula that would indicate that you are overplaying your bankroll is assuming you are playing "correctly". But if the game is significantly better than the typical game you play in, a better option than quitting would be to play quite a bit tighter on all streets than what maximizes your EV including folding hands or avoiding raising with hands where your edge is obvious but small. If you do this well your EV will still be higher than normal without increasing your standard deviation.

Interesting point. Let's take this to a ridiculous extreme to try to identify the boundaries. Is there a "realistic" game in which it would be correct to have 100% of your bankroll covered? If so, what would be the characteristics of such a game? I say "realistic" because you could always contrive a ridiculous scenario like playing heads up with a player who always folds to a reraise no matter what or something like that.

Playing tighter than normal for less EV is lowering the WR and increasing variance. Not what I personally want to do with 30 percent of my roll. Aren’t we just waiting for coolers (or being cooler’d)?