What makes one poker game better than another

My first post, hope its not a bad one

Often I notice people ask questions like "how much of poker is luck and how much is skill?". Or some similar enquiry.

Like we could say um " its twenty nine percent luck".

This isn't one of those questions, but since I discovered online poker I've played loads of online card games for money of different types. Stud, Draw, Holdem, Omaha, Hi-Lo variants, games with wildcards, guts games, all sorts.

The common theme is that the good players win the money from the not so good players. But since the structures of the games are all different there must be some sort of theory behind, what makes a game the most profitable to be the expert at? I know that many people think HiLo games have the biggest gap (between the skilled and the unskilled), but what makes this inherently the case?

For example, take draw poker with a limit structure (like on Paradise poker). Everyone agrees this is a highly skillful game, but is it really, when compared to Limit holdem?

In draw poker there 2 betting rounds vs. 4 in holdem.
So in holdem there are twice as many chances to make a mistake. This appears to imply Hold'em requires more skill.

Holdem pots are bigger. But on the other hand, draw poker (online) is quicker. You get more hands in per hour.

But my question isn't specifically targetting those 2 games. Is there any such study of what parameters in general make a game more or less attractive to play?

[Jacob_Gilliam]

What makes a game more attractive to play varies from person to person. Also, it's dependant on what level you play at. Discussing some games...

Omaha 8/b: Many people like this game because hi/lo split games have less varience. Also, as you pointed out, there is a bigger difference between good and bad players. The reason for this is because the value difference between good hands and bad hands in Omaha 8/b (and stud 8/b) is greater than in Hold em.

7 card stud: More information avaliable. If it's easy for you to remember cards, you can punish less skilled players.

NL Hold em: Chance to make more per hand. Good players can beat bad players more easily by controling the pot odds.

Limit Hold em: Lots o' games. Bad players. Lots o' books written on the subject. Easy to multitable.

Usually, draw poker is moronically easy...

Also, some people just enjoy one game more than others. My favorite game by far is stud, but I can make more money playing Hold em. But you'll find many people arguing for thier favorite game. All things being equal (stakes, avaliabilty of games, etc.) Omaha 8/b is the best game to play against bad opponents, and Hold em (Limit or No Limit) is the best to play against decent opponents. IMHO.

[UATrewqaz]

Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes.

The game where the opponents make the most mistakes, giving you tons of +EV opportunities should be the most attractive.

This is why big time pros can play lots of different poker games and limit/NL/spread limit, etc.

They simply see the game where the opponents are making the most EV mistakes and then clean up.

'better' is subjective. For me, it's all about money.

Winrate and variance are the only two things I consider when thinking about the 'best' game to play.

[ipp147]

Malmuth has some good articles on poker games structure in his Poker Essays books.

From a personal perspective I would like a game against lots of weak tight opponents that should mean my win rate is high and my variance low.

From a long term perspective a "good" game is one that has a fair mixture of luck and skill therefore allowing a weaker playing to have winning streaks.

[Jacob_Gilliam]

You would prefer weak tight to loose passive? I would think the winrate would be higher in a loose pasive game and the extra variance shouldn't bother you unless your bankroll is underfunded.

[ipp147]

[ QUOTE ]
You would prefer weak tight to loose passive? I would think the winrate would be higher in a loose pasive game and the extra variance shouldn't bother you unless your bankroll is underfunded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my winrate would be highest in a full ring loose aggressive game with 9 other people overplaying their hands but so would my variance.

I would happily exchange a little variance for win rate but thats a personal preference.