Mixed Game Learning Curve Question

[Doubling12]

Take an intelligent, analytically-minded person who has never played poker before. For each type of poker, let him read the 3 best books on the subject cover to cover, and play 200 hours online:

Holdem
Omaha 8/b
Stud
Stud 8/b

At the end of the training, if this person goes to a California card room and plays these games at around the 40-80 level, how will he do? I guess my question is, I have an idea of how he will do at Holdem, but how well do people play the other games relative to a book learnd person?

[mmcd]

40/80 Holde'em: He'd probably take a beating, unless there were several very bad players in the game. I think experience with different types of players and different textured games is important here, and 200hrs. of online play just isn't enough.

40/80 Omaha/8: I think he'd probably do ok here, probably not a big winner, but almost certainly no worse than a break-even player or maybe a small loser. It's been my experience that many players in mixed games play Omaha at least somewhat poorly.

40/80 Stud: I think he'd do so/so here and probably be somewhere between a small loser and a break-even player provided he has developed a pretty good understanding of the game.

40/80 Stud/8: I think he'd probably do the best here. This is a game where decent fundamentally sound players usually do pretty well, and the profit in these games usually comes from the noticeably bad players. I don't think Stud/8 is game where an expert can really put a beating on a merely decent player (assuming a full game)

[Doubling12]

Fascinating, I was expecting the exact opposite answer (i.e. he would do the best at holdem). Thanks for the response - gives me encouragement to press on with the non-holdem training!

[mmcd]

I haven't played in LA, but I do have experience (East Coast) in these games (H.O.E., H.O.S.E.) at the 50-100 - 100-200 level. Given that L.A. holdem games at these levels are apparently extremely good, this might change things somewhat.


Generally speaking though an "expert" holdem player will have more of an edge over a pretty good player than would an "expert" Stud 8 or Omaha 8 player. I think the ante structure in stud at these levels serves to lessen the experts edge (against a good player) as compared to holdem.


Having come from the background of learning Hold'em first, I think Stud/8 is the easiest to learn followed by Omaha/8 with Stud being a distant third (but still not as hard as Hold'em)

In Stud/8 much of your profit (assuming a mid-high stakes game) will come from so/so players making small but fundamental errors in both the actual play of the hands, and in judgement that tend to compound themselves, and a few opponents who will play outright ridiculously.

[Doubling12]

I can only speak about mid-limit holdem here in the LA area, and my experience is pretty limited at that. But my sense is that the average 20-40 to 30-60 player has a very good feel for the game and can punish an inexperienced player. However, they are too loose, without much technical (i.e. book) knowledge, and when faced with superior heads-up play, they can be worn down and/or tilted into blowing off quite a bit of money. I suspect MikeL is doing this at the Commerce 1/2 - it would explain the bizarre plays his opponents make. So given that, I don't know if the games are as good as they appear from his point of view.

This is of course totally opinion...