Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

Daniel Negreanu starts off his blog today with the following

[ QUOTE ]
There is an old saying that goes, "A good hold'em player makes for a good poker player, while a good stud player makes for a good stud player."


[/ QUOTE ]

WFT? Is this true? Has anyone ever heard this "old saying" before, or is DN just an other HE-centric player?

Anyway, I'd be interested in other's opinions.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"A good hold'em player makes for a good poker player

[/ QUOTE ]

= A good holdem player makes for a good stud player.

No.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

Well, I don't think you're going to find too many people who agree with that on this forum. I'm mostly a stud and stud/8 player, but I play hold'em and Omaha/8 well enough that I can get the money in good games. I'm playing badugi for the first time right now. I have no idea what I'm doing, but the early returns are pretty good.

On the other hand, I know a lot of very good hold'em players who just got pummeled when stud/8 got hot in my local room a few years ago, and again when Omaha/8 got hot for a while. I actually think that someone is a hold'em player first would be more inclined to specialize than someone who specializes in stud. The hold'em player is always able to find a game. The stud or Omaha player isn't.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

I've been playing some hold 'em recently and doing quite well. I find these games to be easier. I think hand reading in hold 'em is much easier.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

I don't know how much I agree with this. I'm playing more hold'em right now than stud, but after playing hold'em, then omaha then stud, I think stud is a lot more helpful to limit hold'em than omaha is. Many plays such as raising to get a free card, etc. crossover easily.

Now I think its fair to say a good stud player does not necessarily equal a good NL hold'em player (and vice versa).

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

Here's a quote from Johnny Moss that's kind of insulting ...

"Hold em is to stud what chess is to checkers. "

Found it there: http://www.launchpoker.com/poker_fun/quotations/

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a quote from Johnny Moss that's kind of insulting ...

"Hold em is to stud what chess is to checkers. "

Found it there: http://www.launchpoker.com/poker_fun/quotations/

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t have it here at work, but in 7CSFAP, don’t they say that 7 Card Stud is the most difficult form of poker?

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

Well, Moss said a lot of things. I think he has it backwards.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

stud made me instnatly good at hold em when the boom came. and when i seriously wanted to be good at stud it improved my hold em game.

It improved my limit holdem more than anything.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

I don't play that high (4-8, 6-12), but I have trouble believing that HE is a more challenging game, on a purely mechanical level. In stud, there are so many cards to keep track of, so many different draws and hand ranges to consider, different potential "best" hands for each opponent, more outs to keep track of...

In HE, there are relatively few cards exposed, and there are tracking tools, data bases and software to help players out, but I don't think such programs would help as much with stud, given the hidden cards and bigger boards. On any HE board, it's obvious to a squirrel what the nuts are, and what your outs are. Not so in stud.

I know I'm not yet a good poker player, but I didn't become a winning HE player until I got serious about stud. I think it makes for good general poker mental exercise.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

Here's my rant...I started out learning poker by playing $1/5 stud, and I still play $5/10 or $10/20. I also play hold em'. I do prefer stud though...

1. Let's be honest, stud is not hip/popular/TELEVISED !
No wonder why the average Joe/Jane wants to really play hold em'. They want to play what's hot. And now everybody wants to play NL, just like on TV! It just looks so easy, doesn't it ? Only two cards to worry about...

2. Also, (I'm 32 y/o BTW), the average age of most stud players at an average table is probably 55-60. Most guys/girls in their 20's/30's want to drink/cut-up and gambool. "Pops", is a retired guy who is killing time at the stud table every day for recreation, not really to make money. Needless to say the table atmosphere is not really fun. Hence the term, "rock garden", most raises are met by groans and folds. Sorry if I offend anyone but...stud is seen as an "old man's" game, none of my friends/co-workers will play stud. I'm kind of an eccentric, I guess.

3. Stud is a game about patience, & LIVE CARDS ! Most hold em' palyers who aren't that good would get creamed at a stud table with someone who had a clue. You can't play your AcKd10c when there are a K and 10 on the board already, and
three clubs. Also, stud is slower, fewer hands dealt per hour. If you fold your first three cards, you have to wait longer for the next hand to be dealt than in hold em'.

4. In 1994, I first started playing in AC. There are more stud games in AC than anywhere else by far. At that time the percentage of hold em' to stud games was about 30%-70%.
Now it's 90%-10%. In Vegas it's 99%-1%. Some Vegas casinos don't have stud at all. And if they do, it's the lousy $1/5 spread limit. Most stud players will agree this is the worst form of casino poker out there (Although there used to be $1/3 games in AC). I'll say that $2/4 hold em' is just as boring and unprofitable. But, casinos are under pressure to fill all of these tables/new rooms popping up, and the demand is for low limit/no-limit hold em'. They have to spread what will put fannies in the seats.

Again sorry for the rant, but let's pray stud doesn't disappear totally from casinos. It's a great game, let's not let it die !

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

Chip Reese said if you can master stud than you can master any form of poker. Chip Reese > Johnny Moss.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

I believe that David Sklansky has stated on these forums that 7-Card-Stud is the most difficult form of poker to master.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

Really? I've beaten HE up to 20/40 online for a couple of years now. About a month ago, I just had to take a break from HE, so I've been playing Stud only. I'm just amazed at how much easier hand reading seems in to be in stud. In HE, often times a totally innocuous card comes off, and all of a sudden someone is jamming. In stud, I feel like I always know where I'm at, and that allows me to bet/raise on the end for value much more often than in HE.

Michael

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Really? I've beaten HE up to 20/40 online for a couple of years now. About a month ago, I just had to take a break from HE, so I've been playing Stud only. I'm just amazed at how much easier hand reading seems in to be in stud. In HE, often times a totally innocuous card comes off, and all of a sudden someone is jamming. In stud, I feel like I always know where I'm at, and that allows me to bet/raise on the end for value much more often than in HE.

Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

The players at this level usually always have decent hands or some fairly large draw that missed by 7th. Even with hand reading being more difficult in HE you can usually value bet against people more often since they go to the river lighter. It's tough to get a lot of action without being crushed in tight structured stud games. In holdem there is always some guy who will over defend his blind, call down with middle pair or too weak a kicker, etc. The only time I feel like I'm value betting some fish in stud is when some tight player completes with an obvious big pair in the whole then calls you down when it's obvious you must have an even bigger pair, but this situation comes up in HE often as well. Stud is a way better game when you're playing against really horrible players, but once people start getting better SH holdem is probably the way to go. If stud got more popular I think there could be some great SH stud games if they used a looser structure.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (My Theory)
 

Danny has said this for years. Moss, like Negreanu, was primarily a HE player.

I am certainly no expert, but I have a lot of theories, and most of them are correct. Just as a good Stud player doesn't equal a good HE player, a great theorist doesn't equal a great poker player.

Stud is the type of game that will teach patience. It will teach a certain type of memory consciousness and a good ability to read hands, as well as people skills. How many fights break out in a Stud game? Not many. No, I'm not talking about since the HE boom, either. I remember back when AC was almost all Stud, and still, the fights broke out at the HE tables.

As we progress, yes, reading hands at Stud is easier than reading hands at HE. Is it solely because of exposed cards? No, not solely, although that is a great benefit to us. We have progressed.

As the stakes get higher, the pots become important enough to buy jewelry or a car, psychology starts to figure into the game more. Sheer aggression, the willingness to make the third bluff is a factor. The advantages of a closed handed game are obvious. You will see a ton of middle/higher limit games of HE, but not many of Stud (I'm talking 100/200 and higher).

Then there is the highest echelon. And what is played? Rarely HE, the biggest mix is:

[ QUOTE ]
No-limit Deuce-to-Seven single draw
No-limit Hold’em
Pot-limit Omaha
No-Limit Ace-to-Five single draw

$4000-$8000 limit games:

Omaha Eight-or-Better
Seven-Stud High
Seven-Stud Eight-or-Better
Deuce-to-Seven Triple Draw
Limit Hold’em
and occasionally Razz


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is taken directly from Barry's website. And yes, he admits that Ted is one of the winners in the "big game." And third, Ted's best games are Stud games (Stud, Stud 8, Razz). If you think there is nothing to what I'm saying, then pity you.

Daniel is NOT one of the players, nor one of the winners in the big game. Do I see a coincidence? Yes.

Like Howard Lederer has asserted, " Specialize at your Peril ."

Amen.

Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

"Any game where there's more decisions to make is a more skillful game. If someone can master stud, then they can master any poker game."--Chip Reese

"Seven Card Stud is the most skillful game to play correctly."--Page 28, Sklansky on Poker

"Seven Card Stud is clearly the most difficult game."--Page 29, Sklansky on Poker

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

I wonder what Ted Forrest, Phil Ivey and Chip Reese would have to stay about this?

I think I'd go with them instead of "the DN"

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing some hold 'em recently and doing quite well. I find these games to be easier. I think hand reading in hold 'em is much easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bah, I can't stand hold'em. How can you put people on hand? Hold'em (especially short handed) always seems like people running around with sharp knives in the dark hunting for a wumpus.

At least in stud you have the boards to go on, and in Omaha, it's quite easy to read hands since there should only be a few combinations in contention on any given flop.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's tough to get a lot of action without being crushed in tight structured stud games. In holdem there is always some guy who will over defend his blind, call down with middle pair or too weak a kicker, etc.


The only time I feel like I'm value betting some fish in stud is when some tight player completes with an obvious big pair in the whole then calls you down when it's obvious you must have an even bigger pair, but this situation comes up in HE often as well. Stud is a way better game when you're playing against really horrible players, but once people start getting better SH holdem is probably the way to go. If stud got more popular I think there could be some great SH stud games if they used a looser structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party Poker is, I think corrupting your thinking. Real stud games in casino's are loosly structured. Shorthanded stud is far better than short handed hold'em since you have more information to work with.

In hold'em you often have to sink into default mode because you have no clue what the other person has. In stud you usually have a clue and can make more intelligent decisions.

A pound pound pound player will be toast in short handed stud game. But he'll be a big winner in short handed hold'em games.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (My Theory)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I remember back when AC was almost all Stud, and still, the fights broke out at the HE tables.

You will see a ton of middle/higher limit games of HE, but not many of Stud (I'm talking 100/200 and higher).

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as the Taj goes, both of these statements are wrong. The argueing and calling for the floor is done way more at the Stud games. That's my opinion. 90% of the time, the highest limit game being spread is always Stud. That's a fact.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

I think when a very good player is h/u against a very bad player, the bad player will need more luck to win at holdem.

That's because the good player will come into many hands in holdem without a made hand, as will the bad player. He will outplay the bad player more often than not when they both miss, and they miss more often than they hit.

In stud, the good player is playing as many, if not more, made hands than draws. The bad player in stud will run him down more with less luck and be able to put him on a hand easier.

All things being equal, and I knew the odds in my favor would hold up for that session against a bad player, I'd play stud. If I wasn't guaranteed anything, I'd play holdem. He'd need more luck to win than he would at stud.

My experience with both games
 

I've played hold-em for the past four years. It took me almost two years before I felt comfortable with the game and before I was able to beat 10-20 games online. I started playing stud about six months ago and currently play a mixed 50-100 game hold-em/stud twice a week along with a 75-150 mixed game once a week. I have done very well in the games to this point but am wary of my results because of the high variance in Stud. However, the transition to Stud has been much smoother than I had anticipated. The game seems more intuitive and there seems to be much more information readily available than in hold-em. I also have a fairly good memory which has contributed to my success. There's also no question that playing and studying hold-em/poker psychology/reading people for the past four years has contributed greatly to my stud game but I still feel that if I had started with Stud, I would have progressed much more quickly than I have with hold-em. Honestly, I'm glad that I started with the "tougher" game or my poker game wouldn't be where it is today. Now if I could just figure out how to play Omaha 8 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Tony

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (My Theory)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember back when AC was almost all Stud, and still, the fights broke out at the HE tables.

You will see a ton of middle/higher limit games of HE, but not many of Stud (I'm talking 100/200 and higher).

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as the Taj goes, both of these statements are wrong. The argueing and calling for the floor is done way more at the Stud games. That's my opinion. 90% of the time, the highest limit game being spread is always Stud. That's a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
AC, and even moreso the Taj, is a world unto itself. I should have made that more clear last night. I've been going to bed early and was up later than normal.

The last time I talked to Cindy, she said the high limit Stud games were still very good in AC.

Even at the Taj, while I was there the fighting was at the HE tables, but we left in 2003, so my experience is both limited and dated.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (My Theory)
 

Stud you have more information available to you. But the thing is, all the Hold 'Em monkeys don't have the attention span to remember the cards that have been folded, or to calculate all their outs.

They aren't used to all that information. They see A/K offsuit in the hole and they go nuts. Just like all the monkeys trying to play hands like A/K/9/7 rainbow in Omaha 8.

Hold 'Em has brought an awful lot of weak players into our world, including non-hold 'em tables. I'm happy for it. I was primarily a Study player before the Hold 'Em boom, and then I learned Omaha 8 after that.

A good limit Hold 'Em player makes about 1-2 BB's/100 hands from what I've seen. A good Omaha 8 limit player makes 4-5 BB's/100 hands. And the Pot Limit guys I've seen making 10 BB's or more in Omaha 8, although that game has a bit more risk involved because of the pot limits.

I find it extremely easy to multi-table Omaha hi/lo limit games and play on auto-pilot for an easy profit. It's not "glamorous" like Hold 'Em tournaments, and the payouts aren't as large. But the profits are more reliable/stable and I'm playing to make money, not gain fame.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

I think Dannis just trying to sound lofty again. IMO, whether stud or hold'em is easier for any person depends on how well they can memorize cards. Though, I personally have found stud-8 easier (and more exciting) than hold'em, and hold'em easier than stud high.

Re: Stud vs Hold Em (low content)
 

[ QUOTE ]

A pound pound pound player will be toast in short handed stud game. But he'll be a big winner in short handed hold'em games.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the ante is high enough pounding is the way to go in any short handed game, especially the rock garden of high/mid limit stud...I just spent 4 days in Vegas pounding away in the 50-100 through 100-200 SH stud games to good effect.

-Carlos

Re: My experience with both games
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've played hold-em for the past four years. It took me almost two years before I felt comfortable with the game and before I was able to beat 10-20 games online. I started playing stud about six months ago and currently play a mixed 50-100 game hold-em/stud twice a week along with a 75-150 mixed game once a week. I have done very well in the games to this point but am wary of my results because of the high variance in Stud. However, the transition to Stud has been much smoother than I had anticipated. The game seems more intuitive and there seems to be much more information readily available than in hold-em. I also have a fairly good memory which has contributed to my success. There's also no question that playing and studying hold-em/poker psychology/reading people for the past four years has contributed greatly to my stud game but I still feel that if I had started with Stud, I would have progressed much more quickly than I have with hold-em. Honestly, I'm glad that I started with the "tougher" game or my poker game wouldn't be where it is today. Now if I could just figure out how to play Omaha 8 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Tony

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you play this game? Is it a casino or private game?

Thanks,
Carlos