What's he thinking?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I've just started reading Get the Edge at Low-Limit Texas Hold'em by Bill Burton. I've only read a few pages but I came across the following statement.

Hold'em is a faster game than seven-card stud. You can play a hand in about two minutes. This means you will see more hands during your playing session. This allows you to be more selective which should lead to profitability if you capitalize on the poor play of your opponents.

Now obviously this statement is silly. But when reading poker/gambling books and you see statements like this, it's often a good exercise to try to figure out what the author was thinking and why his thinking is flawed. So, are there any opinions out there.

By the way, just as Burton states, it is usually correct to play less hands at hold 'em than at stud.

Best wishes,
Mason

[TimTimSalabim]

I guess that means, conversely, that if my dealer is really really slow, then I should be able to play 72o profitably. I think we need John Feeney to go inside that poker mind (although he might not find anything there).

[BruceZ]

He's thinking that since you get more hands per hour, you can play a smaller percentage of hands and still play the same number of hands, and hence make the same profit. Of course the percentage of hands you play should have nothing to do with the number of hands per hour, but on the quality of your hands relative to the quality of your opponent's hands. This is independent of how fast the hands are dealt. Also, although stud is slower, the pots will be larger due to more betting rounds and more players chasing. The reason you play fewer hands in hold 'em is that you have a smaller chance to draw out against a better hand.

[Gabe]

Say you only play like six hands per hour, right? Now if you like play stud and like the dealer is slow and everything, you have to play some pretty bad hands. However, if you play hold 'em, you get to play good hands. Got it? [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bruce:

You wrote:

Also, although stud is slower, the pots will be larger due to more betting rounds and more players chasing.

That's not true with the possible exception of a game like $40-$80 stud with a $10 ante. If you get a chance take a look at a $20-$40 stud game and compare it to $20-$40 hold 'em. In most instances you will see at least twice as many chips and far bigger pots in the hold 'em game.

You wrote:

The reason you play fewer hands in hold 'em is that you have a smaller chance to draw out against a better hand.

While this is true, could it also have something to do with the fact that hold 'em pots in general cost much more to enter. Again using $20-$40 as an example, unraised stud pots cost only $5 to play compared to $20 for hold 'em.

Best wishes,
Mason

[BruceZ]

I realized after I posted that stud pots are usually smaller, but I didn't understand why. Different betting structures would explain it.

[TimTimSalabim]

After thinking about it some more, I see now where the author has gone wrong in his thinking. He has confused hourly rate and EV. Obviously, the speed of the game affects your hourly rate, and if the game is slow enough, you might walk away from it because it's not worth your time. Hand selection, though, is entirely a function of EV, i.e. if I was faced with this situation a thousand times, would I make more money by playing this hand or folding it. Which does not depend on whether the hand takes two minutes or two seconds or two hours.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Tim:

I think you have this exactly right. Clearly the author has a confused understanding of expectation. Thus there is a good chance that this will cause him to make other errors later in the book even though his statement that you play less hands in hold 'em than stud is correct.

best wishes,
Mason

[758219]

"This allows you to be more selective which should lead to profitability if you capitalize on the poor play of your opponents."

He means what his opponents think. Many players think like playing less hands in fast/tight games, so losing some marginal but important profit situation, while the better players will get those marginal profits. So, fast/tight games become profitable.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Mason, Everyone,
Is it possible we're reading too much in?

How about this:

"Since hands come by faster in HE, you can play a smaller *percentange* of hands in a given time period, but actually play the same *number* of hands as a slower game... so it's psychologically easier to be selective in HE" Or perhaps even more concisely... "you get more opportunities per hour to play good hands in HE, so don't blow it
by being loose".

Perhaps I'm as silly as the author, but it makes a little sense to me.

Sincerely,
AA