The Universal Nature of Skills

In another thread on another forum, Mason made an offhand recommendation that many of the "Hold'em is the Cadillac" crowd add seven-card stud to their repetoire. He also commented on the intriguing nature of the game.


It got me to thinking. How easy would it be for a fairly decent Hold'em player to become a winning stud player? In more basic terms, how easy is it to transfer the skills from one game and adapt them to a different game? Even in today's world of specialization, there are still many top pros, especially tourney pros, who play successfully in several different games. Of course skills such as hand-reading, pot management, and odds calculations would still be vital. A good hold'em player could obviously pick up stud much faster than a poker novice. I would think the adjustment would come gradually with more experience. A good hold'em player at some point develops a feel for the game that allows him to play in a winning comfort zone. It would take additional experience at stud for the same player to pick up that sort of feel. But how much experience? And would it be worth it? Are there any other factors that would affect the ability to master other games?


Just a few random thoughts and questions. All comments welcome.


The Falcon

i am not sure that what i am thinking aloud is necessarily true but in the uk the game is (was?)probably pot limit seven stud and it is generally played with "everyone" bluffing what their upcards are suggesting they may have


with five betting intervals and pot limit there are many hands not shown down even though you "know" the opponent is bluffing


when ladbrokes started its internet poker site for its uk clientele a lot of players had never played hold'em before and they carried their bluffing play into their new game - they were KILLED by the experienced hold'em players


i am sure that good hold'em players could soon become good stud players, but i do believe that game philosophies are probably more different than they appear on the surface and not all obvious to the infrequent player

Mike confirms a point that I have always felt was a possible problem. Much as why I feel that tournament Hold'em effects your game, would playing stud on a regular basis not effect your hold'em play. I know both Mason and Sklansky sujjest playing all games so that you can be in the looses game. But with the availability of games today would not specializing be better? This is a question not a statement.

I just started playing poker in any form last fall and began with hold'em. After a lot of study, reading, thinking, and playing, I eventually became a solid player. In the last few months I've tried to expand into other forms of poker. Limit Omaha/8 seemed like a natural step and I got to a reasonable level of competency at it (loose games) quickly.


Now I'm trying to work on stud, but here's my problem: its too expensive to learn. Let me do a little comparison.


For me to play Hold'em at Canterbury Park I am paying .083 bb per hand in antes at the sb=1/2bb limits. For me to play 2/4 7CS it costs me .156, almost twice that. 3/6 is .104, not a lot better. And there is a $.50 heavier rake on stud games as well. Obviously you don't want to be forced to play loose because of high antes in a game you're not comfortable with.


I play on Paradise as well, and while the rake is certainely lighter, the low limit stud games are like this: .5/1 - no ante, $.25 bring in; 1/2 - $.25 ante, $.50 bring in. Not fun. To get to a reasonable ante level I would have to play 2/4, and I somehow think 2/4 Paradise 7CS is not a good place for a beginner.


So essentially I don't see a good way for me to learn to play 7CS without spending a lot of money.

Playing other games typically increases your understanding of poker. At least it has for me.


Hold'em/stud/omaha specialists tend to be better in one game than the other(s) because in one they understand how to value hands better during the different rounds than in the other(s) -- precisely, I suspect, because of a richer understanding of things universal to poker.


Take (the trivial example of) a solid hold'em player and the notion that she should fold the nut-flush draw or a set on the flop multi-way rather than jam in omaha8 might baffle him. But what this may suggest is that her hold-em play is actually a bit mechanical, no matter how successful, and her appreciation of value and having the best of it is honed by rote instead of understanding.

So essentially I don't see a good way for me to learn to play 7CS without spending a lot of money.


I'd reccomend buying the Turbo software. It certainly plays as well as low limit players. You should be able to get in a lot of worthwhile practice.

I agree, O/8 is a much easier jump for HE player.

vehn


A comment about paradise poker games:


I play low limit on Paradise Poker "PP" and slightly beat the low limit games.... I think the important parameters for players like me and "well maybe" you are:


In general I prefer full games: i.e., 8 players in stud & ten in flop games....


For flop OM8 games: I want at least 50% (+/- 2%) or higher of the players (on average) to see the flop. I avoid and try to leave games where(when)less than 48% of the players see the flop. I also prefer the average final pot size to be 8 to 10 big bets. Even 7 big bets is ok in a game where over 50% of the players are looking at the flop -- the reason being is that it's probably a soft-tight game where you can be the person doing the raising and controlling more than your share of the action (which I prefer and think is good for me).


I notice that many of the $2-4 & higher OM8 limit games only have about 40% of the players seeing the flop even though the final pot size may be over 8 big bets. This indicates there is lots of early raising which drives out loose players and severely reduces your odds on loball hands. That is there is probably a few tricky players in these games and they can make it uncomfortable for you (I know for me) unless you know how to handle these players. I would avoid them. You want to be the player giving the action....


I think similar reasoning can be applied to holdem don't let experts burn up your money....


For stud games: I prefer at least 44% (+/- 2%) or higher of the players (on average) to take a card off. I also like to see the final pot size to average over six big bets.


I think if you are a fairly good player and adhere to some of the above that you can have a good time on Internet Poker and maybe win a little -- i.e., you are playing for almost free minus your time on earth.


I have been told recently that some Internet Poker Sites us non-human players to start games. I wonder about this????


carl

Falcon - I think the various poker games have some elements in common, but are not exactly the same.


Individuals have different talents. Some people seem to be good at everything they try. When most of us look carefully at our strengths, we notice that we are naturally more talented in some areas than in others.


Good baseball players are usually also good golfers. But could any active baseball player be as good a golfer as Tiger Woods? Or could Tiger Woods become a great baseball player - another Willie Mays? Hard to say. There is clearly some overlap between the skills needed to succeed at golf and baseball, and yet those skills are not exactly the same.


A similar relationship exists, I believe, between the various games of poker. There are slightly different skills needed for each of the various games. Some players seem to be good at all the games. Other players have more talent for some forms of poker than for others.


Those who suggest one game of poker is as easy as another may have a set of abilities easily adaptable to all the different varieties of poker.


On the other hand, I can clearly see that I have more talent for playing some games than others.


Could it be that those who espouse the game of seven card stud have natural talents that lend themselves well to that game? Note that if one has talent in an area, what one does in that area may seem so easy that one may fail to recognize the difficulty for others.


I remember when my high school band teacher tried to teach me how to triple tongue. There was a piece we were playing in band that required triple tonguing, so that triple tonguing was an essential skill. TTKTTKTTK is the routine, but I never could do it fast enough. My band teacher urged me to practice, and I did, but I still couldn't go TTKTTKTTK fast enough. That basically was the end of high school band for me. One day, years later, I was explaining this to my first wife and just how to triple tongue. She instantly went, "TTKTTKTTKTTKTTKTTKTTKTTKTTKTTKTTKTTK" faster than I even could think it. It was the first time she had ever tried it.


And in that instant I recognized that years ago my high school band teacher had simply been incorrect. Perhaps if you can triple tongue, practice improves your performance level, but if you truly can't, no amount of practice will get you there.


Seven stud, huh?


Can you effortlessly remember all the cards that have been played on a particular deal, then forget them, move on to the next deal and effortlessly remember all the cards that have been played on that particular deal? Can you do this deal after deal? I assure you there are people who can. Isn't that something you'd like to be able to do before you jumped in the ring with someone who could?


Seven stud, huh? Maybe you can play it successfully. Try it and see. Or maybe there is another poker game at which you can do better. Stick to areas where you have natural talent and you have a better chance for success.


That's just my opinion.


Buzz