PDA

View Full Version : Is There Any Hope For REAL Poker (i.e. Hold Em Is Killing Us)


grandgnu
04-03-2005, 10:58 PM
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy No Limit Hold 'Em as much as the next guy (not much of a Limit Hold 'Em player)

But, this one game is killing off the other great games I enjoy (7-stud and hi/lo 8 or better Omaha and Stud)

Hold 'Em is so fricken easy, and I'd rather play more difficult games that require more skill (i.e. 7-stud) where I can have a much larger advantage over my opponents than one could obtain in a game like Hold 'Em.

Is there any hope for our other games, or will they just die off? My home poker games see wait lists for the Hold Em events that exceed the attendance lists for 7-stud. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

The Dude
04-04-2005, 08:02 AM
Haha, whatever.

grandgnu
04-04-2005, 10:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Haha, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ] Be quiet Lebowski! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The Dude
04-04-2005, 11:40 AM
Hey, you got the wrong guy, man. Nobody calls me 'Lebowski,' I'm 'The Dude.'

Iceman
04-04-2005, 05:20 PM
"Hold 'Em is so fricken easy, and I'd rather play more difficult games that require more skill (i.e. 7-stud) where I can have a much larger advantage over my opponents than one could obtain in a game like Hold 'Em."

You can have a much larger advantage against bad players in no-limit holdem than in any of the games you mention. My favorite games to play are stud and stud-8 - but I now play no-limit holdem and pot-limit Omaha almost exclusively. No-limit holdem is not as interesting as other forms of poker, but it certainly is profitable.

grandgnu
04-04-2005, 08:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"Hold 'Em is so fricken easy, and I'd rather play more difficult games that require more skill (i.e. 7-stud) where I can have a much larger advantage over my opponents than one could obtain in a game like Hold 'Em."

You can have a much larger advantage against bad players in no-limit holdem than in any of the games you mention. My favorite games to play are stud and stud-8 - but I now play no-limit holdem and pot-limit Omaha almost exclusively. No-limit holdem is not as interesting as other forms of poker, but it certainly is profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there's more fish and more money/tables available in hold em games. But.......those games can be extremely brutal too. Your premium hands can get cracked quite easily because you've got five or six people seeing the flop with junk, and your A/A drops significantly in value.

Whereas in a game like stud, there is much more information available to me, more cards are shown. This makes it easier to calculate my outs, my opponents possible holdings and outs, etc.

Most players don't pay enough attention in a game like 7-stud, so I can gain a larger edge than would be possible in a game like hold 'em, because I pay attention and keep track of the suits, the cards, etc.

I had three 9's on board in 7-stud and this idiot was calling me down trying to catch an inside straight flush (had the 8/5 suited on the board and 4/7 in the hole). I already had 4/4 in the hole for my full house. It was great, kept max betting him and he just called and called.

Ed Miller
04-04-2005, 10:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hold 'Em is so fricken easy

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, there's more fish and more money/tables available in hold em games. But.......those games can be extremely brutal too. Your premium hands can get cracked quite easily because you've got five or six people seeing the flop with junk, and your A/A drops significantly in value.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's more to hold 'em than meets your eye.

Shoe
04-05-2005, 03:04 AM
It takes a lifetime to master.

grandgnu
04-05-2005, 07:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]

There's more to hold 'em than meets your eye.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It takes a lifetime to master.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oye Vey! I believe the majority of pro's and "authorities" on the subject of poker would agree that 7-card stud requires more skill than Hold 'Em.

I like what Hold 'Em has done for poker, it's brought a lot more money into it with all the fish out there. I just don't care for the difficulty in putting together any poker events that don't feature Hold 'Em.

InfernoLL
04-05-2005, 05:33 PM
If by "skill" you mean "good short term memory", then I won't argue. As to the skill pertaining to every other aspect of poker, I don't think your statement is as certain as you seem to think it is. Especially in no limit, "out-playing" your opponent instead of just "out-remembering" them plays quite a large role. As to your hand example, I'm sure any hold'em player can give you an equally pathetic example of a weak player playing badly. That's what weak players are for, in any game.

grandgnu
04-05-2005, 07:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If by "skill" you mean "good short term memory", then I won't argue. As to the skill pertaining to every other aspect of poker, I don't think your statement is as certain as you seem to think it is. Especially in no limit, "out-playing" your opponent instead of just "out-remembering" them plays quite a large role. As to your hand example, I'm sure any hold'em player can give you an equally pathetic example of a weak player playing badly. That's what weak players are for, in any game.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, Hold 'Em is more about playing the other player, while 7-stud requires more playing of the odds and cards, calculating the math, etc.

While both games feature a bit of both, each leans more heavily to one side. Since so few players in 7-stud (in my experience) bother to take advantage of all that additional information, that gives me a much larger edge.

Granted, in Hold Em a lot of players don't take the time to pay attention to others actions, betting patterns, etc. and figure things out for themselves.

I've noticed my own Hold 'Em game improve significantly over the past year. Hell, just the past 3-4 months I've been able to figure out my opponents holdings, my reading of foes is getting much better, but I still have a long way to go.

MCS
04-06-2005, 06:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It takes a lifetime to master.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I don't know about that. It took me only a minute to learn.

zaxx19
04-06-2005, 07:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If by "skill" you mean "good short term memory",

[/ QUOTE ]


YUP. I think 30-40% of Stud is just memory.

grandgnu
04-06-2005, 09:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If by "skill" you mean "good short term memory",

[/ QUOTE ]


YUP. I think 30-40% of Stud is just memory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Memory is a skill, in my book anyway. What I'm saying is that I can gain a much larger edge over the ritalin-deficient hold 'em players who are used to 16-tabling online, which you couldn't possibly do in a game like 7-stud.

d1sterbd
04-06-2005, 12:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There's more to hold 'em than meets your eye.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It takes a lifetime to master.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oye Vey! I believe the majority of pro's and "authorities" on the subject of poker would agree that 7-card stud requires more skill than Hold 'Em.

I like what Hold 'Em has done for poker, it's brought a lot more money into it with all the fish out there. I just don't care for the difficulty in putting together any poker events that don't feature Hold 'Em.

[/ QUOTE ]


I would consider Ed Miller to be a "pro" and an "authority".

-d1sterbd

holdemfan
04-06-2005, 02:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But.......those games can be extremely brutal too. Your premium hands can get cracked quite easily because you've got five or six people seeing the flop with junk, and your A/A drops significantly in value.


[/ QUOTE ]

I had three 9's on board in 7-stud and this idiot was calling me down trying to catch an inside straight flush (had the 8/5 suited on the board and 4/7 in the hole).

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you had the full house but doesn't this sound like the same fish playing junk trying to out draw you? We love it in hold'em too! When I get tired of too many outdraws (which is almost never) I go to higher stakes. The table is tighter and can be more predictable but the BB/hour is much less. I actually enjoy 15/30 much more because of the skill level but the profit is much higher at 10/20 and sometimes a goldmine on the 6/12 table.
Holdemfan

zaxx19
04-07-2005, 06:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that I can gain a much larger edge over the ritalin-deficient hold 'em players who are used to 16-tabling online, which you couldn't possibly do in a game like 7-stud.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you are looking for the greatest possible edge over bad players(or "weak" ones lol) then isnt the consensus the HI LO games-Omaha in particular?

grandgnu
04-07-2005, 09:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that I can gain a much larger edge over the ritalin-deficient hold 'em players who are used to 16-tabling online, which you couldn't possibly do in a game like 7-stud.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you are looking for the greatest possible edge over bad players(or "weak" ones lol) then isnt the consensus the HI LO games-Omaha in particular?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another great game, better than Hold 'Em in my opinion. There are SO many players who will call you down with the 3rd or 4th "best" low, and with two pair against obvious flushes, straights, etc.

But, like Hold 'Em, there isn't as much "record keeping" the player needs to do. In 7-stud, you have more information available to you, so by being one of the only players to keep track of it, you gain a much larger edge over your opponents.

Klak
04-07-2005, 12:18 PM
no i think the consensus is Stud 8/b. regular stud H/L was disbanded because the bad players would almost never win.

zaxx19
04-08-2005, 06:51 AM
Ok, makes sense.

I just think players like me who dont have a freakish short term memory will always be at a disadvantage in Stud while we wont necessarily be at the same disadvantage in non Stud games.

Personally I dont think ill learn Stud just bc of that fact. No point in going into boxing 1 handed.

StellarWind
04-10-2005, 01:47 PM
IMO bridge is a much more interesting game than poker.

But who cares what I think? Or what you think? As long as our primary card-playing objective is winning money, the fish will decide what game we are going to play.

Read the literature. Poker games where the good players have too large an advantage eventually die. Your desire for a much larger advantage is equivalent to wishing for the fish to almost never win.

People won't keep coming back to a game where they always lose. You can sheer a sheep over-and-over, but you can only butcher it once.

PS: Enjoy NL ring hold'em while it lasts. The good players probably have too big an edge for it to remain popular in the long run.

grandgnu
04-10-2005, 04:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
IMO bridge is a much more interesting game than poker.

But who cares what I think? Or what you think? As long as our primary card-playing objective is winning money, the fish will decide what game we are going to play.

Read the literature. Poker games where the good players have too large an advantage eventually die. Your desire for a much larger advantage is equivalent to wishing for the fish to almost never win.

People won't keep coming back to a game where they always lose. You can sheer a sheep over-and-over, but you can only butcher it once.

PS: Enjoy NL ring hold'em while it lasts. The good players probably have too big an edge for it to remain popular in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent points. But, the fish can and do win in a game like 7-stud. They chase, street after street, looking for that miracle card (as evidenced when I had three 9's on the board and this guy had 8/5 of spades showing and 4/7 in the hole and was chasing his one out for the straight flush)

Their chasing usually wins them a pretty big pot, so they're always chasing those big pots, and usually paying you off except for the occassional hand or session where they crush you.

You're giving the fish way too much credit when you talk about them up and leaving a game. They love the action, they enjoy betting and betting and raising, it's entertainment and excitement for them, it's not about the money (I've had people drive over an hour to my home game to play for 20 bucks, crazy, but they do it)

Blarg
04-10-2005, 04:30 PM
I agree that for almost all people, poker is definitely not about the money.

It's about socializing and getting out of the house, having a safe place to get drunk and ogle girls in, having a chance to feel smarter than others or blessed by God with your incredible luck, the stimulation of all the noise and people and general hope and desperation in the air, the illusion that you might strike it at least a little bit rich, at least for a day -- anything but money!

If it were about money, people wouldn't move up so quickly in limits on games they don't even know well, would care about the math, would study the games very seriously, would be flooding the 2+2 forums literally by the millions, wouldn't drink while playing or walk in the door stoned, and wouldn't throw cute girls chips at the table. They would play games that were the most profitable for them, not the most fun for them. They would treat it like something they did for money, not for almost every other reason under the sun.

StellarWind
04-10-2005, 05:08 PM
I don't play 7-card stud and I didn't write about it in my post. OP spoke of a huge edge in 7-card stud but my impression from general reading is that it's actually a sound mixture of skill and luck.

I do believe that it is essential that the fish win on a frequent basis. That means entire sessions and not just individual pots. Constantly losing is extremely discouraging and takes the fun out of almost any game for almost everyone.

Selective memory is an awesome force that allows many fish to be "winners", but it can't operate unless the fish goes home a winner once in a while.

Mason has written a number of good essays in this area.

theBruiser500
04-10-2005, 05:23 PM
girls don't have to do with poker girls are no where aroudn poker

Blarg
04-11-2005, 02:08 PM
The Commerce Casino and occasionally some of the other L.A. casinos have plenty of women in them. There's a bar, a restaurant, the Chinese section is party central, some of the cocktail waitresses are absolute stunners and you get some damn cute dealers, and occasionally you even see a cute woman or two playing. The place is packed on a Friday or Saturday night. You can go there just to grind out poker, but plenty people go there just for the bar or buffet, to socialize, whatever. Men and women.

fimbulwinter
04-18-2005, 05:09 PM
If you are bored with NLHE's format or simply don't like the dynamics of the game, that's fine as it is an issue of taste.

If you are unsatisfied with your overlay you should either work hard at improving your game or invest in a shotgun and skimask as those are the only viable means I can see for beating cash NLHE in terms return on investment.
fim

grandgnu
04-18-2005, 06:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you are bored with NLHE's format or simply don't like the dynamics of the game, that's fine as it is an issue of taste.

If you are unsatisfied with your overlay you should either work hard at improving your game or invest in a shotgun and skimask as those are the only viable means I can see for beating cash NLHE in terms return on investment.
fim

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the game, don't get me wrong. What I don't like is that it's making it difficult to find 7-stud, stud hi/lo and Omaha hi/lo games, EVERYTHING is hold 'em based now. I like to play a variety of games, I get bored just playing the same game all the time.

CrazyN8
04-19-2005, 12:02 AM
you should play tourneys then....the World Poker Challenge at Reno Hilton had 15 entrants into the $500 PLO game....i thought that was a misprint at first but then I saw 17 entrants, 5 rebuys and 2 add-ons in the $500 PLHE game. Maybe anything that isn't NL is dying.

grandgnu
04-19-2005, 07:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
you should play tourneys then....the World Poker Challenge at Reno Hilton had 15 entrants into the $500 PLO game....i thought that was a misprint at first but then I saw 17 entrants, 5 rebuys and 2 add-ons in the $500 PLHE game. Maybe anything that isn't NL is dying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm stuck up in Massachusetts, with the only place for action that's close enough for me being Foxwoods (and they suck, their service for poker players is terrible, because they have no competition)

And I, unfortunately, cannot afford to take trips out West just yet. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

AKQJ10
04-19-2005, 09:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm stuck up in Massachusetts, with the only place for action that's close enough for me being Foxwoods (and they suck, their service for poker players is terrible, because they have no competition)

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed about lack of competition (hopefully Mohegan can put some pressure on them, since RI and MA continue to pass up the goldmine) but you must admit, you can get all different levels of stud at all hours of the day and night. There may not be a better cardroom for the aspiring 7-stud player (emphasis on "aspiring" in my case, i'm just playing 1-3 right now).

grandgnu
04-20-2005, 05:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm stuck up in Massachusetts, with the only place for action that's close enough for me being Foxwoods (and they suck, their service for poker players is terrible, because they have no competition)

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed about lack of competition (hopefully Mohegan can put some pressure on them, since RI and MA continue to pass up the goldmine) but you must admit, you can get all different levels of stud at all hours of the day and night. There may not be a better cardroom for the aspiring 7-stud player (emphasis on "aspiring" in my case, i'm just playing 1-3 right now).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the players there are terrible, which is great. But it's 100 miles there for me, and that's just too far for me to commute and only make a hundred bucks profit playing 1-3 or 1-5.

toots
04-20-2005, 02:27 PM
And, FW will often have an Omaha table.

That's right. In the sea of 76 poker tables, there's that one O/8 table. Sometimes, when they're feeling mega generous, they'll open two: one $2/4 and one $5/10, although most of the times I've been there, it's been one or the other.

toots
04-20-2005, 02:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
(emphasis on "aspiring" in my case, i'm just playing 1-3 right now).

[/ QUOTE ]

Might as well play $1-5. It's just as fishy and/or rocky as the $1-3 game.

grandgnu
04-20-2005, 03:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(emphasis on "aspiring" in my case, i'm just playing 1-3 right now).

[/ QUOTE ]

Might as well play $1-5. It's just as fishy and/or rocky as the $1-3 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 1-3 in my experience has a ton more chasers/action while the 1-5 usually winds up heads-up or maybe three-handed at best. Maybe just the times I'm playing it though, dunno.

Also, I know what you're talking about with the Omaha Hi/Lo table. I sat down at a 5-10 with kill and did quite well. Some lady would call you down with two pair, it was great.

PokerProdigy
04-21-2005, 09:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, you got the wrong guy, man. Nobody calls me 'Lebowski,' I'm 'The Dude.'

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Mason Malmuth
04-22-2005, 05:24 AM
Hi grandgnu:

You should try limit hold 'em, you might discover that it is much different from no limit. Also, the edge you can obtain in no limit against weak opposition is larger than the other games you mention.

Best wishes,
Mason

grandgnu
04-22-2005, 07:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hi grandgnu:

You should try limit hold 'em, you might discover that it is much different from no limit. Also, the edge you can obtain in no limit against weak opposition is larger than the other games you mention.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the advice Mason. I've never warmed up to Limit Hold 'Em or Omaha (I like the hi/lo variant)

Limit Hold 'Em reduces my opportunities to push out drawing hands (as opposed to the NL variant) and I'm just not all that skilled in the Limit version.

Do you really believe one can gain a greater edge in Limit Hold 'Em than in a game like 7-card stud?

GeniusToad
04-22-2005, 03:03 PM
I think, much like stud and draw games, this thread is dead. We've completely deviated from the original subject which was regarding the demise of "REAL" poker (implying that games the author of the thread aren't good at aren't "REAL" poker). The most recent posts are concerning what games the Poster enjoys most and whether he does or he doesn't like Limit Hold 'em.

It seems to me he doesn't want to see Hold 'em becomming so popular because he doesn't like it as much as other forms of poker (or is as skilled at it) and not because he's interested in protecting endangered species. The great thing is that its completely okay to not like Hold 'em. If you play online there are always stud games to get into. Not nearly as many as Hold 'em, but they're there. It's not the case in B&M rooms but that will change. You also mentioned at some point that you have a home stud game, albeit a meager one. You should consider yourself lucky to have that to fall back on. Hold 'em will not reign forever. Those other games will always be there (waiting for their turn again) and new ones are always being created so who knows what those games will evolve to in the future. I love stud (not my best game though) and I think the poker community does as well. They're just riding the wave of Hold 'em because its great for poker. In fact, I think the future may lie in the "multi-game in one" tourneys like H.O.R.S.E. My generation has never really known draw poker (on a large scale) but several decades ago draw and stud (5 card version) were about the only games one could find as a gambler. It may not be pleasing to see the game you're most skilled at disappearing, but you have to deal with it. You just have to adapt and hope the tides turn sooner than later. My appologies, Gnu, for any contempt that may be read between the lines. I think I was a bit offended by your excluding Hold 'em from "REAL" poker in your original subject line. I really do mean no harm to you, or stud. As I mentioned earlier I love it and hope it survives.

By the way I think Mason was suggesting Limit Hold 'em simply because its more mathematic and straight forward like stud (at least I think) and also because you'll find no shortage of those games online, in B&M's, tourneys, and in home games. Also, in my opinion there are just as many weak players to be exploited in small stakes limit than in NL.

Take care!

grandgnu
04-22-2005, 03:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think, much like stud and draw games, this thread is dead. We've completely deviated from the original subject which was regarding the demise of "REAL" poker (implying that games the author of the thread aren't good at aren't "REAL" poker). The most recent posts are concerning what games the Poster enjoys most and whether he does or he doesn't like Limit Hold 'em.

It seems to me he doesn't want to see Hold 'em becomming so popular because he doesn't like it as much as other forms of poker (or is as skilled at it) and not because he's interested in protecting endangered species. The great thing is that its completely okay to not like Hold 'em. If you play online there are always stud games to get into. Not nearly as many as Hold 'em, but they're there. It's not the case in B&M rooms but that will change. You also mentioned at some point that you have a home stud game, albeit a meager one. You should consider yourself lucky to have that to fall back on. Hold 'em will not reign forever. Those other games will always be there (waiting for their turn again) and new ones are always being created so who knows what those games will evolve to in the future. I love stud (not my best game though) and I think the poker community does as well. They're just riding the wave of Hold 'em because its great for poker. In fact, I think the future may lie in the "multi-game in one" tourneys like H.O.R.S.E. My generation has never really known draw poker (on a large scale) but several decades ago draw and stud (5 card version) were about the only games one could find as a gambler. It may not be pleasing to see the game you're most skilled at disappearing, but you have to deal with it. You just have to adapt and hope the tides turn sooner than later. My appologies, Gnu, for any contempt that may be read between the lines. I think I was a bit offended by your excluding Hold 'em from "REAL" poker in your original subject line. I really do mean no harm to you, or stud. As I mentioned earlier I love it and hope it survives.

By the way I think Mason was suggesting Limit Hold 'em simply because its more mathematic and straight forward like stud (at least I think) and also because you'll find no shortage of those games online, in B&M's, tourneys, and in home games. Also, in my opinion there are just as many weak players to be exploited in small stakes limit than in NL.

Take care!

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense taken. I just view Hold 'Em as an extremely simple game, and I can't fault better players for wanting to play it and take the fishies money, since it's the best bet right now.

I consider myself a strong NL Hold 'Em tourney player, but I've never really enjoyed limit Hold 'Em, in tourney or cash variety.

I don't have a problem with Hold 'Em being popular, I DO have a problem with it's popularity really hurting the availability of stud and omaha games.

As far as playing online, don't really care for that either. I'm much stronger when I can see my opponents live, I focus better in live games than online.

My original problem was that Hold 'Ems popularity was really hurting the availibility of other games, and being a bigger fan of the other games, I'm hoping they won't die off (people use to be huge fans of 5-card draw poker, but you don't see that available much anymore either)

The Dude
04-23-2005, 09:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really believe one can gain a greater edge in Limit Hold 'Em than in a game like 7-card stud?

[/ QUOTE ]
He said you can have a better edge in NL Hold 'Em than in a game like 7-card stud.

grandgnu
04-23-2005, 09:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really believe one can gain a greater edge in Limit Hold 'Em than in a game like 7-card stud?

[/ QUOTE ]
He said you can have a better edge in NL Hold 'Em than in a game like 7-card stud.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, my mistake

The Dude
04-23-2005, 08:45 PM
BTW, the unstated assumption is that it is a deep-stack game. For most restricted buy-in games, this is not true.

ceskylev
04-23-2005, 09:54 PM
Heh... a girl taught me to play. First she smacked me when I thought that a full house beat four-of-a-kind. Then she told me who David Sklansky is.

I've got a bit more of a clue these days...

schwza
04-28-2005, 03:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, you got the wrong guy, man. Nobody calls me 'Lebowski,' I'm 'The Dude.'

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahaha

Mr. Graff
04-29-2005, 12:19 PM
Would Duder, His Dudeness or El Duderino be OK?

tylerdurden
04-29-2005, 05:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Would Duder, His Dudeness or El Duderino be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not into that whole "brevity" thing.

Student
04-30-2005, 11:27 PM
I appreciate your insights concerning the following:

"I actually enjoy 15/30 much more because of the skill level but the profit is much higher at 10/20 and sometimes a goldmine on the 6/12 table."

Being a beginner, with only about 1,400 hands of NL HE played, I'd read again and again that folks seemed to graduate from level to level, and then stay stuck at a certain level for a long time. Unfortunately, though they'd been profitable at all lower levels, now they could barely hold their head above water. And I'd also heard about the exceedingly low profit levels at the higher levels, perhaps 1 BB/100 for example.

So I'd asked a friend what he thought the optimum profit level might be. Your remarks indicate, at least for you personally, you could scratch the 15/30, sometimes scratch the 10/20, and find greatest cash profits at 6/12 on occasion. That's what my intuition suggested!

If you'd like to elaborate on tradeoffs for other players, including aspiring players like myself, relating to choice of levels based on maximizing cash profits, rather than other intangibles, I'd applaud!

Dave

Student
04-30-2005, 11:51 PM
Gee, I live in Albuquerque, NM, which has 5 competing Indian Casinos within 25 miles! Yet I've decided I want to play internet NL HE.

Your plight is magnified by the 100 miles distance from a live casino, but it's especially hurt by your reluctance to adapt to online internet casinos. Your plight would vanish if you would simply get onboard internet poker!

I play at PokerStars, and they will have thousands of tables operating simultaneously at any one time. Indeed many of these tables are freeplay games, but that is not a shortcoming of PokerStars; it's something they should be complimented about! Being a beginner at poker, I did freeplay for a few weeks, and now I've played 1,400 hands of 1/2 cents NL HE. I'll play at this level until I start winning, and so far I'm down $7.00. To go to the 5/10 cents game (the next level at PokerStars), I need to be ahead by $20 at 1/2 cents.

I say this because you too could adjust to internet poker. Just as your 7 card stud game is very different from NL HE, limit HE is very different from NL HE, and internet casinos are very different than physical casinos. Hence, each of these transitions requires a kind arena, and the internet casinos are that!

Certainly not facing real people, except in as much as they express themselves in their betting and not betting, makes the games very different. But your plight won't go away by simply telling about it; it can be dealt with if you take the bull by the horns, rather than bringing the bull to the masses, as you're doing in this forum. I say this to awaken you to reality, rather than as an indictment! I find this thread to be entertaining, but my advise is intended to eliminate your true plight. Have fun, and be profitable!

Dave

grandgnu
05-01-2005, 05:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Gee, I live in Albuquerque, NM, which has 5 competing Indian Casinos within 25 miles! Yet I've decided I want to play internet NL HE.

Your plight is magnified by the 100 miles distance from a live casino, but it's especially hurt by your reluctance to adapt to online internet casinos. Your plight would vanish if you would simply get onboard internet poker!

I play at PokerStars, and they will have thousands of tables operating simultaneously at any one time. Indeed many of these tables are freeplay games, but that is not a shortcoming of PokerStars; it's something they should be complimented about! Being a beginner at poker, I did freeplay for a few weeks, and now I've played 1,400 hands of 1/2 cents NL HE. I'll play at this level until I start winning, and so far I'm down $7.00. To go to the 5/10 cents game (the next level at PokerStars), I need to be ahead by $20 at 1/2 cents.

I say this because you too could adjust to internet poker. Just as your 7 card stud game is very different from NL HE, limit HE is very different from NL HE, and internet casinos are very different than physical casinos. Hence, each of these transitions requires a kind arena, and the internet casinos are that!

Certainly not facing real people, except in as much as they express themselves in their betting and not betting, makes the games very different. But your plight won't go away by simply telling about it; it can be dealt with if you take the bull by the horns, rather than bringing the bull to the masses, as you're doing in this forum. I say this to awaken you to reality, rather than as an indictment! I find this thread to be entertaining, but my advise is intended to eliminate your true plight. Have fun, and be profitable!

Dave

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, don't you know internet poker is rigged? Geesh! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

mosta
05-02-2005, 01:29 AM
you want to nut peddle in omaha-8 and memorize board cards in stud. you prefer games with more information open and less variability (more predictability in winning hand values). what it sounds like to me is that actually hold em is too hard for you. jamming locks against donkeys is not "REAL" poker. it takes skill and certain qualities to make a living off small edges, limited information, and high variance. I advise you not to go near heads up limit hold em. (I don't know if no-limit's even tougher.)

grandgnu
05-02-2005, 07:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
you want to nut peddle in omaha-8 and memorize board cards in stud. you prefer games with more information open and less variability (more predictability in winning hand values). what it sounds like to me is that actually hold em is too hard for you. jamming locks against donkeys is not "REAL" poker. it takes skill and certain qualities to make a living off small edges, limited information, and high variance. I advise you not to go near heads up limit hold em. (I don't know if no-limit's even tougher.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the majority of pro's will tell you: if you can master 7-stud, you can master them all. It requires additional skills that would not be applied in a game like Hold 'Em. I enjoy Hold 'Em, and do well at it. But I hate the negative impact Hold 'Em has had on other games (i.e. everyone and their brother will only play Hold 'Em and not give the other games a chance)

BarronVangorToth
05-02-2005, 10:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
and high variance.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you believe that Hold 'em has more variance than Seven Card Stud? If so, why?

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

toots
05-02-2005, 11:00 AM
Hold 'Em is a nice game for those who don't want to take the time to learn how to play poker.

(Pulling pin, running away, ducking down, covering ears)

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

grandgnu
05-02-2005, 01:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hold 'Em is a nice game for those who don't want to take the time to learn how to play poker.

(Pulling pin, running away, ducking down, covering ears)

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh heh, exactly. I honestly believe that stud and omaha require more knowledge and skill than Hold 'Em. Someone saying that Hold 'em is too "hard" for me is way off. I just prefer a game where I can have a larger edge over my less-observant opponents, and thus have an opportunity to win more money.

Hold 'Em is more guessing while a game like 7-stud provides you with more information. There's still guessing involved, but if you are a player who takes the time to keep track you can boost your edge because of the information available. Why wouldn't I want to have that edge?

Golem47
05-06-2005, 10:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hold 'Em is a nice game for those who don't want to take the time to learn how to play poker.

(Pulling pin, running away, ducking down, covering ears)

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree hold-em is killing poker. I like to call it the 9-ball of poker. Great for TV with big action and fast play but the real pro's play sraight pool. So when the trend is over and the game gets so popular that you can't get a seat without registering a year in advance (like NASCAR CUP tickets) people will be forced play other games and those of us that took the time to learn them now will clean up in the long run. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Chimera
05-08-2005, 07:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So when the trend is over and the game gets so popular that you can't get a seat without registering a year in advance ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when the game gets so popular that you have to register a year in advance, that will be a clear sign that the trend is over ... kind of like when a restaurant gets so crowded that no one goes there anymore. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Triumph36
05-10-2005, 12:53 PM
You say Stud and Omaha require more knowledge and skill than Hold 'Em.

I think you're equating knowledge and skill. While Stud and Omaha require better knowledge of mathematics, outs, and so on, Hold 'Em is the ultimate psychological game. In Stud, a player can often tell when he is good based on folded cards, and in Omaha, if you don't have the nuts or if you're not drawing to the nuts, you're probably making a mistake. In Hold 'Em there's a lot less information, and a player rarely gets the nuts. There are far more marginal situations in No Limit Hold 'Em. I still contend that knowing when to bet the river in NLHE is the most difficult decision in poker.

toots
05-10-2005, 01:16 PM
I remember an old saying that anyone who says he's a writer probably isn't one. That reflects the number of people who are in love with the idea of being a writer, but who either don't want to do the work or lack the skill.

I'm starting to feel the same way about people who say they're poker players, but who only play HE, particularly NLHE.

grandgnu
05-10-2005, 02:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I remember an old saying that anyone who says he's a writer probably isn't one. That reflects the number of people who are in love with the idea of being a writer, but who either don't want to do the work or lack the skill.

I'm starting to feel the same way about people who say they're poker players, but who only play HE, particularly NLHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually they're there to "gamboool" and want to play hands like 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif and pray for a magic flop to justify their overplaying marginal hands. They can't help but to bluff and overplay marginal hands, etc.

They don't want to take the time to learn pot odds, position or pay attention to their opponents (or board cards in a game like stud)

Works for me, more money in my pocket. Just sucks because I've had to dump all of my stud and omaha home games and just go with NL Hold 'Em because that's all the fish want to play. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

grandgnu
05-10-2005, 02:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You say Stud and Omaha require more knowledge and skill than Hold 'Em.

I think you're equating knowledge and skill. While Stud and Omaha require better knowledge of mathematics, outs, and so on, Hold 'Em is the ultimate psychological game. In Stud, a player can often tell when he is good based on folded cards, and in Omaha, if you don't have the nuts or if you're not drawing to the nuts, you're probably making a mistake. In Hold 'Em there's a lot less information, and a player rarely gets the nuts. There are far more marginal situations in No Limit Hold 'Em. I still contend that knowing when to bet the river in NLHE is the most difficult decision in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree that Hold 'Em is more a psychological game, while stud is more knowledge regarding odds, paying attention to board cards, etc.

But in my experience, the fish only play NL Hold 'Em because it's extremely easy to pickup and they don't need to think too much or process as much information as they'd need in stud.

I'm not saying Hold Em doesn't require any skill, it also requires logic, understanding odds, probability, position and reading your opponents. I still believe that 7-stud is more complex, and I respect a player who will play more than just NL Hold 'Em.

It's where the money is right now, but back in the day games like 5-stud and redraw games were hot. You have to be able to adjust to the changing times. If you pigeon hole yourself into only one form of poker, and that form dies out, you'll have a harder time adjusting to it's replacement, than if you had taken the time to learn the other poker forms out there.

I'd rather be strong in 1-3 poker game types, and well-rounded in the others, than to just specialize in only one game. I believe Doyle mentions that in his book.

Triumph36
05-11-2005, 01:03 PM
No one said anything about pigeon-holing. I've read Super System 2 and Ciaffone and Reuben's PL/NL. I've played pot limit Omaha, O/8, 5 stud, 7 stud, etc. Not very much of it, but I've played them enough to know basic strategies. I agree that players should become proficient at all major forms of poker.

But no-limit hold'em is the popular game right now. Casinos don't spread re-draw games and 5 stud because no one would play them now. And Hold 'Em is so popular now that I just can't see new variants of poker arising from anywhere except maybe overseas. These games are often named after places for a reason: they spread outwards from isolated locations. With less and less isolated locations, thanks to television, people are playing the game on television, and that is no limit.

No Limit Hold 'Em is real poker. The tendency to 'play the man, not the cards' is what makes it poker: he with the most knowledge will sometimes not get the most money, it is he with the most ability to read opponents, make value bets and bluffs in the right spots.

Easy E
05-12-2005, 12:27 PM
Do your players need to be taught about the other games?

grandgnu
05-12-2005, 12:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Do your players need to be taught about the other games?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've held Omaha hi/lo, 7-stud and stud hi/lo games before. But the Hold 'Em addicts have a terrible time understanding the games. They're worse than crack-addicted monkeys with ADHD, they can't handle anything more complex than worrying about the two cards in their own hand and that's about it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

toots
05-12-2005, 01:27 PM
Oh, now that's just cold.

It does indeed match my experiences, but it's still cold.

Funnier'n crap, needed to be said and well appreciated.

But very cold.

tylerdurden
05-12-2005, 05:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I've held Omaha hi/lo, 7-stud and stud hi/lo games before. But the Hold 'Em addicts have a terrible time understanding the games. They're worse than crack-addicted monkeys with ADHD, they can't handle anything more complex than worrying about the two cards in their own hand and that's about it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're complaining about this??? You want smarter opponents?

TheShootah
05-12-2005, 05:38 PM
I love Stud too, and hate the fact that HE takes away from all the other games, but I in no way shape or form agree with the statement that Omaha is harder than Hold Em. You sit there and wait for an awesome hand. Then you play that hand. If you don't flop the nuts, or a draw to the nuts, you fold. Even the best players agree that O8 is a much easier, boring game than Hold Em. I like the game, and I like Hold Em, but Hold Em is a substantially harder game, especially limit hold em. Please. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Now Stud, I think Stud is harder than everything, but hey, it's all Hold Em nowadays...

grandgnu
05-12-2005, 06:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've held Omaha hi/lo, 7-stud and stud hi/lo games before. But the Hold 'Em addicts have a terrible time understanding the games. They're worse than crack-addicted monkeys with ADHD, they can't handle anything more complex than worrying about the two cards in their own hand and that's about it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're complaining about this??? You want smarter opponents?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all, I just want the dumb opponents to play games where I have an even greater advantage over them. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

tylerdurden
05-12-2005, 07:09 PM
It's going to be easier for you to get better at what the fish want to play than to convince them to play the game you want.

Triumph36
05-14-2005, 09:22 PM
So you're complaining about variance then.

Again, you haven't said if you're referring to pot limit Omaha or 7-stud, or limit. I think NLHE is much lower variance than both, and more profitable. And yeah, O8 is a far easier game. 7-stud is not particularly complex either.

Fish want action. You want their action. NLHE is an action game. Play NLHE.

grandgnu
05-14-2005, 09:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So you're complaining about variance then.

Again, you haven't said if you're referring to pot limit Omaha or 7-stud, or limit. I think NLHE is much lower variance than both, and more profitable. And yeah, O8 is a far easier game. 7-stud is not particularly complex either.

Fish want action. You want their action. NLHE is an action game. Play NLHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, variance is part of the game, regardless of whether it's hold 'em or stud. I just hate that it's so difficult to get a good game of stud or omaha going because of everyones ADHD making them only want to play Hold 'Em.

Yes, I understand that if I want to make more money, right now anyway, Hold 'Em is the way to go. It's just rotting my brain and negatively impacting my ability to play 7-stud because I'm so used to not having to pay attention and recall board cards in Hold Em.

rigoletto
05-17-2005, 09:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
and ogle girls in

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you play poker????

3rdEye
05-18-2005, 10:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would Duder, His Dudeness or El Duderino be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not into that whole "brevity" thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

8 year-olds, dude. Pederasts.

henington
05-19-2005, 04:45 AM
I agree. Holdem is a great game but I think it's popularity is overrated. Card players, professionals, whatever, aren't given the respect they deserve for other games they excell at.
However, if you excel at something better than holdem, enjoy it while you can. If other games start getting the media hype like holdem is, than a lot more competition wll surface, making it more expensive to play...and just making those bad beats harder to accept. Win the money while it's there! And if the money doesn't bother you and you just want the competition, give it time. These games are too age old to just die.

tylerdurden
05-19-2005, 09:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
However, if you excel at something better than holdem, enjoy it while you can. If other games start getting the media hype like holdem is, than a lot more competition wll surface, making it more expensive to play...and just making those bad beats harder to accept. Win the money while it's there!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think increased publicity for something like (e.g.) seven-card stud would make it *harder* to win money playing it?

JinX11
05-20-2005, 02:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
you've got five or six people seeing the flop with junk, and your A/A drops significantly in value.


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

shamelissone
05-20-2005, 07:39 PM
http://agur-poker-classic.tripod.com/ here we are, we love texas hold em. Thats the real real deal. It's just our clubs site, but we want to add a bunch of stuff yet on our real site still being made. and yes, i agree the game is headed somwhere else.

motorholdem
05-27-2005, 02:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]


Hold 'Em is so fricken easy,

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeh, right....in the same way that chess and bridge are easy. It's harder than stud because you have less information and can eliminate less possibilities.