Pot Limit Poker: Europe or America?

[Oluwafemi]

are American players-- tournament and cash game-- at a disadvantage (skill-wise) when it comes to their European counterparts? a few things:

1. Daniel Negreanu has an article on PL being the WSOP Championship game because PL involves more skills than NL.
2. Russ Georgiev has an article on Pot Limit VS No Limit where he talks about more skills being employed in PL.
3. Bob Caifonne has an article where he talks about NL as a tournament game and PL as a cash/money game.
4. the consensus seems to be that cash game players are more
skillful than tournament ones.

so, if Europeans predominantly (not exclusively) play PL poker in every form-- tournaments and cash games-- how do American players rate on the world stage?

*side note: Jeff Lisandro is one particular European player in 2004 that really impressed me with his play, specifically the WSOP and the $25K Bellagio HU Limit Holdem which he won.*

[slickpoppa]

If European players were really that much more skillful, then why are they not going to Vegas and cleaning out Chip Reese, Barry Greenstein, Phil Ivey, et. al.? Because they don't want to make more money?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
are American players-- tournament and cash game-- at a disadvantage (skill-wise) when it comes to their European counterparts? a few things:

1. Daniel Negreanu has an article on PL being the WSOP Championship game because PL involves more skills than NL.


[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel writing an article doesn't make it so. Of course he advocates PL, since it emphasizes postflop play, which he excels at.

Everyone has their opinion. They're generally worth what you pay for them.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
If European players were really that much more skillful, then why are they not going to Vegas and cleaning out Chip Reese, Barry Greenstein, Phil Ivey, et. al.? Because they don't want to make more money?

[/ QUOTE ]

this speaks more toward the bottom 95% of American players.

[slickpoppa]

I think a case can be made for PL requiring more skill than NL. But making any inference that a group of players is more skilled because they play PL is unwarranted.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a case can be made for PL requiring more skill than NL. But making any inference that a group of players is more skilled because they play PL is unwarranted.

[/ QUOTE ]

read my first again. nowhere do i make an inference that one group (continent) of players is more skilled because they play PL. i asked if Americans were at a disadvantage?
from the cosigning PL has already received from some American players familiar with it's skill advantage...no inference is needed.

[JRegs]

I think the general agreement amongst most players is that PL requires more skill than NL, and games with lower blinds require more skill than games with higher blinds. In fact, in Sklansky's book on tournament play, he describes a strategy where, if the blinds are high enough, you can go all-in or fold each hand and expect to do reasonably well.

Compare that with a low-blind PL game.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the general agreement amongst most players is that PL requires more skill than NL, and games with lower blinds require more skill than games with higher blinds. In fact, in Sklansky's book on tournament play, he describes a strategy where, if the blinds are high enough, you can go all-in or fold each hand and expect to do reasonably well.

Compare that with a low-blind PL game.

[/ QUOTE ]

i.e. a low-blind PL game with DEEP STACKS which Russ Georgiev's articles talks about. he speaks of the BEST players liking to have others covered.