Good stud game, Thanks Mason

I've been playing holdem for years, and winning consistently in low and mid levels. Recently I read "Stud for Advanced players" and start to play Stud when there is no good holdem games.

I found that most stud games are pretty good, featuring only 1-2 solid players at table, and most of the players go too far for their hands. And the table goes on tilt quite easily after one bad player suck out a couple of times, the pot is usually pretty big.


The game swings my BR twice (maybe even more) as much as what holdem does. Sometimes I got sucked out on river, and have to pay off several big bets. It is really hard to keep calm and sound when you have to pay off the suck out, and sometimes I just dont know where I'm standing at. The fluctuation is much higher. But many thanks to Mason's advice in Card player and his books. I think I'm still winning, in a way with higher variance, but I still have a long long way to improve.


Stud is more fun, I got my heart beating more quickly than when I was playing holdem, where I could sit there for hours and don't see a flop.


SOON

I've found hold-em to be higher variance due to the fact that you start with only two cards. The third card makes a difference for me, particularly at the low limits where straight-forward, solid play is sufficient. With two card, one can put in a lot of money just to see the flop, and a strong hand, such as AK, can completely miss the flop. In stud, AKx is a very marginal hand. You just rarely play it.


The only thing in hold-em is that you see fifth street right away. But in Stud, if you don't improve by fourth street, you're usally out anyway.


Finally, it makes little difference to me that you see the last card in Hold-em. The pot is usually big enough to call anyway. So you don't see the last card. You still have to be wary of being drawn out on, so you just call unless you are fairly certain you have the best hand.

In the middle limit games I have found stud to have a lower variance than hold 'em providing that you are an expert player. For a typical player the opposite should be true. There is an essay in POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME III that addresses this.

...in recent years I thought you instead wrote that if you play very well, Hold'em should have the lower variance, but if you don't play very well, the opposite should be true.

That's correct. And, you can see by the number of chips on the table (compare $20-$40 hold 'em to $20-$40 stud) that the bad players certainly have bigger swings at hold 'em. But my personal results and those of another expert player (in both games) show the opposite.

...in your initial post above you seem to be saying that in STUD the experts have lower variance than in Hold'em. Any chance you transposed these terms by accident, or am I missing something?

Mr. M:


You are right. I wrote stud when I meant to say hold 'em. So let me say it again:


In the middle limits the expert hold 'em player should have a smaller standard deviation than the expert stud player. The opposite would be true of typical players.


I just reread it and I think I got it right this time. Sorry about that.


Best wishes,

Mason

No need to be sorry;-) I was just trying to clarify it to be sure, and since so many people read your initial post;-)


thanks for the clarification

One thing for sure, both games can drive you crazy at times no matter how well you play.

That might explain a lot of things in my case, even if I don't always play that well.