hold em or real stud

[Game Theory]

I am trying to figure out which type of poker is the best to learn as far as skill playing the biggest role. David Sklansky says in "Sklansky on Poker" that he believes no limit hold em (as well as stud8 ob w/declare) has the most skill because decisions are not automatic, and decisions are critical as well.
In poker essays volume three, Mason Malmuth says that he believes that the best poker players in the world are the great stud players, and he emphasizes the large degree of skill involved in what he calls "real" stud, which is higher limit stud.
This is an important issue fir me, as i plan to spend a large part of my time over the yearts studying these games. I would love to hear from David and Mason.
Thank you

[CrisBrown]

Hiya GT,

I think you need to decide why you want to play poker -- are you looking at it as a hobby or as a second job -- and what kinds of decisions you're most comfortable with.

I don't think there's any single "right" answer to this question. It's too dependent on your personality, your goals, and your playing style.

Cris

[Game Theory]

Thanx! for the record i want to play mainly tournaments mainly just as a hobby. however, even though hold em is a lot bigger in tournament sright now than stud, i would still like to play the game where skill has the largest effect on your results. i guess its gonna ber a close call. does anyone know if thers a chance mason and david will reply to this? do they post often with reply'? thanx-GT

[Copernicus]

Youve read what they have to say, why look for a post about it?

BTW in Poker Essays Mason apparently disagrees with D about NL hold em. He thinks most decisions in NL are clear enough that they dont present the same level of difficulty as Limit. I agree, especially in the current tournament environment where NL is an all-in fest. (This said after losing the first or second hand in 3 consecutive tournaments to a 2 outer a 2 outer and a 1 outer.)

[George Rice]

It might be better to learn a number of games to see what you like and where your strengths lie. There's stud, stud 8, holdem, omaha, and omaha 8 among the most popular games. There are the limit, pot limit and no limit variations of each game. And then there are the live game and the tournament versions of each. You may find that your talents dictate you are better at big bet than limit, and tournaments rather than live games. Of course you might be amoung the very few who can excel at all.

Also, a big part of making money is playing in games where you are much better than your opponents. Being an expert at "real stud" won't do you much good if there isn't a game, or the game is filled with other experts. Better to play in the pot-limit omaha game acroos the room full of mediocre players if you are an expert at that too. Also better to play in the 20/40 holdem game as a good player if the other players are bad.

[Robk]

You're missing what (IMO) Mason thinks is the main point: you should learn to play both games well. Also in my understanding, the gap between expert HE and expert stud isn't really that big, and it takes years of hard work to achieve that stud expertise. Disclaimer: I'm a pretty mediocre stud player.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
i would still like to play the game where skill has the largest effect on your results

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case, forget holdem and stud; take up chess.

[TobDog]

I remember that Mason said about "real stud" was that an expert stud player will have more skill than the equivelant Holdem player, but the latger ante, at higher stud limits, handicaps the better players. This makes the better stud players, better, but having to put in more $ early in a hand, if you are a tight player(Holdem tight) then I would think someone playing in such a stud game would get worn down until he adjusts, and loosens up. But like previouesly said, if you can learn them all well(all poker forms), you will be a better player than a one trick pony(and there are a lot of them).

[Game Theory]

Thanx alot guys. I wish D or Mason would post, but such is life. All you comments are appreciated and are very hepful. -GT

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish D or Mason would post, but such is life.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone else pointed out, they have already published their opinions in books. Why do they need to restate those opions?

FWIW, DS also published his tournament "system" and stated that he felt the no limit aspect of NLHE took away much of the advantage of skilled players. He advocated a round-robin type match (a la HOSE HORSE, etc.) to determine the world poker champion.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, DS also published his tournament "system" and stated that he felt the no limit aspect of NLHE took away much of the advantage of skilled players. He advocated a round-robin type match (a la HOSE HORSE, etc.) to determine the world poker champion.

[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't what round-robin means.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
round-robin type match (a la HOSE HORSE, etc.) to determine the world poker champion.

[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't what round-robin means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that, but I was trying to find a succinct way to describe a rotating-game match and that metephor seemd to fit. After I typed it I realized it might be miscontrued so I added the "a la hose, horse" bit in hopes of clarifying. A ha! I just said what I originally tried to say. Let me try again.

DS advocated a rotating-game match (a la hose, horse, etc.) to determine the poker world champion. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TobDog]

[ QUOTE ]
DS also published his tournament "system"

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw a thread about this a while ago in DS book Tournament Poker, he said there was an unknown player a few years ago that finished second using a similar method, did anyone nail down who that was? I was thinking it was the guy that finished behind Scotty Nguyen in 98? any thoughts? Kevin McBride, right?

tobdog