Great responses so far. I will add a few more Dave.

1) Remember to be a winning player, you have to have some BIG winning sessions. I lose money about 60% of the time (not uncommon), but my winning sessions are 2-3x my average losing session, so I make money in the long run. I cap all my losses to 2 buy ins. Never more. I don't bring my ATM card. Just two buy ins of cash, drivers license, and some extra cash for food/drinks/tips.

2) You can't have big winning sessions unless you can win some big pots. And you can't win big pots unless you have big hands and and your opponents have to give you the action. That's the key. You play a tight game. Tight players generally have a hard time winning big pots because they usually will put serious money in only if they have a big hand. Essentially the motto is.....to get action, you have to give action. You may have an image problem where good tight aggressive players don't give you the action when you want it. Ask yourself "Am I losing most of the big pots that I am in?". I know a lot of players that play well, win lots and lots of small pots, and then bam, they lose most of their stack in a big pot. Sometimes you have to play some big pots, some with good hands that aren't close to the nuts. If you're afraid to play big pots with hands that are good but not close to the nuts, then opponents will start putting the heat on you.

3) Play at looser tables, much of what I said in #2 goes away. Then you can play your typical tight game, make good hands, and value bet the sh!t out of them. Weak loose 1-2 players aren't paying attention that you haven't played a hand in an hour.

4) Are you limping in and then folding to raises? I know a lot of players who do this used to), and that will eat up your stack just as much as the rake can. If this is true, you need to rectify it by taking two approaches....1) if first in, always raise or fold or the 2) what Acehater always recomends....if it's worth limping in for $2, it's worth playing for $12-15. If you use the "Acehater" method, your limps will get more respect since they know that you likely won't fold. Also using this method will weed out a lot of junk that you might limp in with. On the flip side, if you're noticing players limping in and folding a lot, attack the limpers when you're in position. You don't need a hand......in fact this type of play goes a long way in your image of an action player so that (what I said in #2) when you do get a big hand, you have a better chance of getting paid.

and 5) we have all been in your shoes. Where nothing goes right. Hang in there. If you're playing a good game, you'll come back.

I am pretty sure most winning players average more winning sessions than losing ones playin NL Holdem, so I suggest taking that with a grain of salt. If fightingIL is an overall winning player but posts winning sessions less than 50% of the time, I would consider that an exception to the norm. Just MHO.

I do have one specific question for you. How much does your playing style change between limit and no limit; specifically are you a lot looser in one game or the other or does it really depend on the villains at the table?

Dave

Poker is always about who is at your table but if you took my average...I am more aggressive and active on a normal day at a NLH table than I would be on a normal day in a LHE game.

The general goal of my comment is that to be a consistent winner, you need to have big winning sessions, because it's hard to grind back from losing 1 or 2 full buyins. Lose a $200 stack and it requires 4 $50 winning sessions (or a 25% rate of return). Not easy given the rake. You need those big wins to offset getting stacked (which will happen).

Illini,

Going for some bigger wins makes a lot of sense and I can see that those are going to be a big part of being an overall winner. And I understand that there are going to be a lot of sessions where you're up just a little or down just a little, I've already had a few of those. I've also had a few of the big losing sessions -- 2 buyins and a couple of nicer wins. Just need to stop the streak of big losing sessions and put a nice little winner in their place.

I also remember a while back in another post and probably in some of the poker books I've read where people talked about stop-losses instead saying "I'll leave when I get my stack up to $X". It's sort of like your idea of riding the hot streak, but with a minor variant. Basically, if things start to turn bad and you lose a big pot or two, then you have a limit (usually a floating limit that rises as the win increases) and take a break when you hit that. During the break, think about if you're tired, tilted, or the game changed a lot and if based on one of those things you don't feel like you can continue to beat the game, then walk away. With that addition, you keeps it a decent win no matter what, but if the table keeps cooperating, then you take the cap off of the upside. That seemed really logical to me, so t was something I adopted back when I was winning.

Dave