11-06-2001, 08:05 PM
I'll try to explain my points shortly.
- I'm a stud player and I won a fair amount of money but stud appears to be a HI-LO game, that is you can fall in very good periods followed by incredible losing sessions. IMO starting with 3/7 of a hand may bring us in losing battles, especially when you face 4-5 opponents calling with every kind of draw. JUst to give the usual stupid example, recently I lost 6 time in a row with trips (rolled 2 times, on 4th 3 times, on 5th 1 time). Easy to say, I lost a huge amount of my bankroll and now I begin to think to quit stud games for a bit. When you have a good hand in stud you obviously have to push it and when you meet 2-3 raises when dealt rolled or trips in a street (NO HIGHER PAIRED DOORCARD SHOWING or LOST VS A HIGHER ROLLED TRIPS) you are committed with many dollars. Yes, ok, in the long run with those hands I'll be a sure winner but now my wallet cries. Perhaps the situation is the same when you fall in a set over set flop at hold'em (pretty rare).
- Hold'em also has a high variance but the starting hand requirements seem to be more rescricted and, overall, you can play after the flop with a 5/7 hand. Surpassing the preflop problems (less important then stud ones in my opinion) hold'em appears to be a more controlled game except the ugly moment of the sets hitted on the flop.
For instance, if you are dealt aces at hold'em you probably can evaluate better what it's happening in 3 STREETS when at stud you have to face 4 STREETS; 2 cards face down dealt vs 3 cards at stud. Knowing the opponents helps better at hold'em than at stud, this is uncontestable.
Now the question: if you would decide to make a living playing poker (having the same high skills in both games), would you play at hold'em or at stud?
Thanks for the answers.
Marco
- I'm a stud player and I won a fair amount of money but stud appears to be a HI-LO game, that is you can fall in very good periods followed by incredible losing sessions. IMO starting with 3/7 of a hand may bring us in losing battles, especially when you face 4-5 opponents calling with every kind of draw. JUst to give the usual stupid example, recently I lost 6 time in a row with trips (rolled 2 times, on 4th 3 times, on 5th 1 time). Easy to say, I lost a huge amount of my bankroll and now I begin to think to quit stud games for a bit. When you have a good hand in stud you obviously have to push it and when you meet 2-3 raises when dealt rolled or trips in a street (NO HIGHER PAIRED DOORCARD SHOWING or LOST VS A HIGHER ROLLED TRIPS) you are committed with many dollars. Yes, ok, in the long run with those hands I'll be a sure winner but now my wallet cries. Perhaps the situation is the same when you fall in a set over set flop at hold'em (pretty rare).
- Hold'em also has a high variance but the starting hand requirements seem to be more rescricted and, overall, you can play after the flop with a 5/7 hand. Surpassing the preflop problems (less important then stud ones in my opinion) hold'em appears to be a more controlled game except the ugly moment of the sets hitted on the flop.
For instance, if you are dealt aces at hold'em you probably can evaluate better what it's happening in 3 STREETS when at stud you have to face 4 STREETS; 2 cards face down dealt vs 3 cards at stud. Knowing the opponents helps better at hold'em than at stud, this is uncontestable.
Now the question: if you would decide to make a living playing poker (having the same high skills in both games), would you play at hold'em or at stud?
Thanks for the answers.
Marco