Update on Sklansky's ranking of games??

[Aragorn]

If your main purpose in poker is to prove something or compensate for a lack of natural endowment worry about how macho a game is.

If your main interest is in making money, then not only consider what games are "easiest" but which match your natural style. The right game for any player is long topic, but factors include how patient you are, how well you handle risk, how well you read others, how good your memory is (for stud), etc.

[Cosimo]

Elsewhere on this board, I've seen this list as:

** Most Technical **
Razz
Draw Loball
Stud HiLo Split (aka Stud-8?)
5 Card Draw
5 Card Stud
Omaha HiLo8 Split (aka Omaha-8?)
Omaha Hi
Limit HE
Stud
NLHE
** Least Technical **

Note that this is sorted by "technicalness", ie whether the game is amenable to a set strategy. PLO isn't in the list.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...?Number=489404

[benfranklin]

The poster of that earlier "technical" list above said that it was from Sklansky's book, and that he was going on memory that might be a little off. It appears he is talking about the same list that lead me to start this thread. Here is the full list from the book, best to worst, best being most suited for someone with "book learnin'", but lacking the talent or experience to make quick decisions in a pressure situation.

1. Lowball draw
2. 7 stud hi-lo, no qualifier
3. Razz
4. PL Omaha
5. Draw, Jacks/better
6. California Draw
7. 7 stud split, 8 or better
8. Limit holdem
9. 7 stud
10. NLHE

[George Rice]

lol--Right over his head. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Cosimo]

Huzzah! I thought the list so important that I wrote it down on a sticky and stuck it to my CD tower. When posting, I decided to dig up the link, but apparently I should have dug further. =) I picked up Split-FAP and 7-FAP today cuz of the list; I'm one of them book-larnin' types without much table experience.