General stud questions

[rtrombone]

I played stud for the first time this past weekend (I'd previously played hold 'em only). My book-learning consists of Sklansky's TOP and Chip Reese's 7-stud section in Doyle's Supersystem. I've also played many hours for play money on pokerroom, FWIW.

I played several hours of 15-30 and 20-40 and made out ok, coming out a winner in both sessions. There were a few hands I could have played better, but I found it easier than hold 'em, overall. I feel good players can make better use of the information provided by their opponents' upcards than poor players can. I had some questions, though.

Mason has said that stud players make more than hold 'em players. I think bad players are at a far greater disadvantage in stud than in hold 'em, so this may be true. I saw some pretty bad players who would call a completed bet on 3rd, another on 4th, then fold. It was hard to determine what they were trying for. Another common mistake they'd make is to chase a small flush or straight when it was clear their opponent already had a big pair.

On the whole, though, people played reasonably. Almost every hand was heads up. My games were fairly tight; there was a lot of ante-stealing going on. It seemed like the only way you were going to win a big pot is if an opponent happened to have a hand at the same time you did. This happened repeatedly. One guy had concealed aces against another player's split kings twice. I had rolled up jacks against someone's concealed kings once. Someone made an ace-high flush after I'd made a jack-high flush, etc. etc.

Is this normal for middle-limit games? I was hoping to play with a bunch of fish as I often do in my hold 'em games. I can't see how one can make money at stud if everyone has a basic understanding of the game (fold garbage at 3rd). On the whole, people were MUCH more competent than my typical hold 'em opponents. If someone completed the bet at 3rd, people rarely called without some kind of hand. Contrast this with hold 'em, where people will frequently cold call your pre-flop raise with unimaginable cards.

Second, people have said that your variance will be greater in stud. Why is this? 20 stud seemed to me to be less expensive than 15 hold 'em. You had the antes and bring-in, sure, but they were only $3 and $5 respectively, and I could steal them occasionally. In hold 'em you have the blinds and the cost of seeing the occasional flop. A lot of times it's correct to see the flop even though you are most likely going to fold right there. These blinds and pre-flop calls add up. And in my games it's generally impossible to steal the blinds.

In stud you play fewer hands than you do in hold 'em. And since every hand was heads up, I was much more likely to win than in hold 'em. I would generally be the favorite against my opponent. In hold 'em I may have a better chance of winning than any other opponent, but I'm definitely not the favorite vs. the 5-person field. Hold 'em = more risk + bigger pots = more variance.

Were my stud games just unusually tight? It seems like hold 'em is more conducive to loose play (there's no such thing as a bad hand, just a bad flop, right). If middle-limit stud games are just generally tighter than middle-limit hold 'em games, it seems to me both your hourly rate AND your variance should be lower in stud.

[Andy B]

Great stud players make a little more than great hold'em players because they have more information available to them and are able to extract extra bets from their opponents on some occasions and save bets on others. The most important factor in determining how profitable a game is is the difference in skill between you and your opponents. A great stud player sitting in a game with competent opponents is probably not going to do as well as a good hold'em player sitting in a game full of incompetents. I am a better stud player than I am a hold'em player, but I do better at $15/30 hold'em than I do at $15/30 stud, because the $15/30 stud games around here tend to be populated by decent players (on those rare occasions where the game actually goes), while the $15/30 games tend to have more players who are less than mediocre. At the $3/6 and $6/12 levels, I do much better at stud than hold'em, because stud is my better game, and the small stud games tend to be populated by loose, passive players, many of whom appear to be terrified by me, no matter how badly I'm losing.

If your hand is live, it's usually correct to go all the way with a four-card straight or flush, even heads-up. If you're up against a big pair, you can even back into two smaller pair to win.

It used to be that your variance was higher in stud than in hold'em. This had mainly to do with the independence of the hands. In hold'em, the best hand holds up a lot more often than it does in stud. With the double-blind structure and more aggressive players in general, the pots can get very big before the flop in hold'em, so the variance in a middle-limit hold'em game is usually greater than in stud.

I've been known to call a full bet on third, another on fourth, and then fold on fifth. If a guy is doing it a lot, he's probably playing less than optimally, but I don't think that it's necessarily a sign of incompetence. Haven't you ever played a hold'em hand in a similar manner?

I play more hands in stud than I do in hold'em. I play a lot more hands in stud if I can get in for the bring-in.

If you're going to play this game, get 7CS4AP. The cover price is a big bet at $15/30.

Many would argue that play money poker is worse than useless, except perhaps for getting used to the mechanics of a site that you intend to play on for real money. I say this as a guy who has amassed a small fortune in play money on several sites.

[rtrombone]

Thanks for the response. It sounds like your experience is similar to mine, then: better competition at the stud tables, and more variance at hold 'em due to the loose (often wild) nature of today's games.

You're probably right about 4 straights and flushes. I was talking more about the action on 3rd street, though, when someone else has completed the bet. Chip Reese says to call only if you have overcards to your opponent's likely pair; I've been following his advice.

I will call a flop bet in hold 'em with some kind of longshot hand only when the pot is bigger than normal. What is it Chip Reese said regarding drawing hands in stud? He said you should continue to chase a straight or flush on 4th only if you had to call a raise or double raise on 3rd. But I need a pretty damn good hand to call one or two full bets on 3rd, so no, I'm not doing this too often. Maybe I'm playing too tight. No small pairs unless I have an overcard kicker--you know the drill. There was this one hand where I'd raised with jacks on 3rd and gotten reraised by a king upcard. I called on 4th and made jacks up on 5th, unfortunately, losing to kings up, which he made on 6th. I should have immediately treated my hand as a small pair without an overcard kicker and mucked, since this was a predictable opponent who definitely had a pair of kings.

I agree that it's probably profitable to play for the bring-in if you have a hand with some potential. You need at least a 3-straight/flush or a live pair, though, something, right. A 1-gapper if you have big cards.

7CS4AP is actually the first poker book I bought. I gave it away, though, when I decided I liked hold 'em better. Maybe I will pick it up again. But I think the most important factor is my being able to find soft games, where my understanding should be sufficient to win. If there are no soft games, I will stick to hold 'em...

Are stud players more passive than hold 'em players, on average? They were pretty passive in my games. On the big bet streets, the action almost always went bet, call, bet, call, check, check, bet, call, etc.

I agree that play money poker is worthless. I still play sometimes, though, to pass the time.

[MRBAA]

I haven't played 15-30, but I've played a fair bit of 5-10 and a little 10-20 and you can find very good games on a regular basis in both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, where I play. As far as calling on third and fourth, the structure in 5-10 (.50 ante, $2 bring in) and 10-20 ($1 ante, $3 bring in) are conducive to playing on the tight side. But if I have a flush draw with two overcards to the raiser, I'm calling a completion. If I have a small live pair with a live kicker bigger than the raiser, I'm calling. There are several situations where calling third and fourth can be right, then fold. Remember, there's an extra big bet round in stud over he, so you have more time to make up for early chasing misses when you do hit. That's one reason why an underpair in the pocket with an overcard kicker up can be worth playing or even raising with in stud -- your trips are hidden if you get them, while your two pair is ultra scary since it pairs you door card. Because more information is available through upcards, pure bluffing and positional aggression are worth a bit less in stud -- hence perhaps some of the more passive later street play you've seen.

[Andy B]

If it looks like it's going to be a heads-up pot, then you don't want to be taking small three-flushes up against big pairs. In a multi-way pot, though, I'll take a small, live three-flush over a big pair, because it's going to be a lot easier to play the rest of the hand.

On your Jacks vs. Kings hand, you probably should have mucked vs. this particular opponent. You want to be careful about making this type of fold, though, because observant opponents will run you over.

I'll play one-gappers down to about (J9)8 if the game conditions are right, and even lower if I'm last to act. I hate straight draws, though. Small pairs are worth limping in with if you are against people who will pay you off all the way if you hit your door card. They are especially worthwhile to limp in with if you are against opponents who will check along on fourth and fifth street. I don't imagine that you'll find too many games $15/30 and up that meet this criteria, though.

I have never played in California, but around here, stud players tend to be more passive than hold'em players. There just aren't many stud games at the middle limits, though. On the east coast, where there are a lot more stud games, there are more aggressive players even in the lower-limit stud games, from my limited experience.

I play in play money games while I'm doing other things on-line. Typically, I'll be reading this board, looking at eBay, and catching up on email while I have a game going on in the background. I don't think I could ever just sit and play poker on-line, which is part of why I don't play for real money on-line. Actually, I occasionally run into a reasonable opponent playing heads-up hold'em on Paradise.

[rkiray]

I'm not a stud expert by any means, so this may be incorrect, but Mason has written on several occasions that one reason why there are more big stud games than hold'em is that in stud the antes get bigger compared to the big beat size than hold'em, where the structure is the same regardless of the bet size. This means in the big games, luck is a bigger factor. This allows the fish to win more in big games and somewhat counteracts the skill of the best big players. Thus, in the big games the variance is higher. This is not as important in small and midlimits. In hold'em, the people who play high limits can destroy the fish who want to play, thus there arn't as many big games.

[Lunamondo]

If it's loose one sees when someone draws out too much, it's absolutely sure knowledge. If it's tight and there is one bad player, one often starts with a big pair, while at holdem one rates to start with medium pairs and slick hands and is having difficulties what to do after the flop. There is only one good side to holdem vs. bad players; it's harder for them to draw out.

Against superaggressive players one needs to get specialised both before and after the flop of how to play different hands against those players; while at seven stud they are less of a problem as one is reqularly starting with a big pair, and additionally one sees part of their hand. Omahas face the same problem as holdem.

When the flops are heads up at holdem, like they rate to be at high limit holdem, any two cards are pretty good. When the games are not that tight, but there are three players on the flop on average, then the situation is not bad at all, but one can flop a top pair or some good draw and have a big edge over the (any) two cards person.

Omaha-8, the spl pot nature makes it hard or not possible to beat if it's tighter than 35%. Holdem, if it's tight it tends to be a heads up game; A2s vs. any pair between 33 and KK, and AK, AQ etc. If A2(s) flops the ace, it rates to do well because of the split nature between pocket pairs and slick hands (or there are more slick hands the looser the situation is, and possibly more pocket pairs the tighter the situations is). And if one flops the deuce and the flop is favorable like all small cards (can have a high card also, but it's a messy situation), it rates to do well as the other rates to have two overcards that often. How one plays in those situations depends of the opponent, but basically it can be ABC.

That's my argument why holdem is not as profitable at high limit level, but I don't all believe it because there should be enough players whose heads up abc's and other stuff is not as good, so they rate to lose a bet here and there. I don't believe there is more information the expert player has at stud, but more think there is more information for the fish at stud, as he often sees what you have, while he would not at holdem, while you would "see" what the opponent has at holdem.

I have often seen there average and tighter average players at high limit online, so it should be beatable. When the flops are 3-way on average, then the AX hands and stuff like that lose money faster, and those are the type of games I play; I would not change it to seven card stud.

What comes to the higher limit games, there is not plenty action online, at seven card stud, but that can of course change, but if the thing does happen that Dr. Stud would beat Dr. Holdem online, there is always the big bet poker where the bad player is sure to lose more money than at limit seven stud, and big bet poker seven stud is likely worse, as the bad player can see when he is beaten, while he would be calling at holdem (and at other nonstud games) more often.