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.