Which Game is Easiest to Beat

[Todd_L]

I used to think that games like Omaha and Stud were easier to beat online that HE, because many people have a decent knowledge of HE, but few have mastered the other games.

I'm now thinking that is not true, and HE is (on average) easier to beat, because it is so diluted with bad players. And most people that play the other games tend to be decent poker players (relatively speaking).

Any thoughts? I'm talking about the low/micro limit tables.

[ohnonotthat]

I'm not sure what constitutes "micro" limits; if you're referring to those 2 and 4 cent games I can't help you having never played them. I can speak with a reasonable degree of knowledge re. .50 / $1 through $3 / $6.

Omaha players may or may not be good overall poker players but they do tend to be good at Omaha. I'm not sure whether this is due to Omaha being one of the easier games to play or whether it's more a function of fewer people "accidentally" winding up in these games.

- By "easy" I was speaking in terms of relative, not absolute, difficulty. (BTW, draw - both high and low - are even easier games).

Stud attracts people who for the most part have some familiarity with both this game and poker as a whole. Familiarity and skill are NOT the same; many of these people are clueless as to the finer points but few are clueless as to the "nuts and bolts" of the game. One of the good things about stud is if an opponent doesn't play well it's unlikely he ever will - unless he puts forth overt effort. Given the near obscurity this game is currently suffering it's rare for a recreational player to stumble over new information. (new = new to HIM)

High draw is rarely spread but when it is the game is usually soft; this is due primarily to the fact that "Everyone 'knows' how to play well" [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].



As for holdem . . .

There are some excellent (and I mean EXCELLENT) players found at limits as low as 2-4 as well as some of the dumbest human beings you'll encounter outside a trailer park.

Since as a winning player you'll play close to break-even poker against these experts while feasting off the nitwits holdem will often seem like the easiest game to play. Be assured it isn't, however, it is the scene of the greatest number of overall (overall = 6-7 out of 9) soft games and will therefore appear to be "easy".

Hold'em is what is showcased on TV, and hold'em is very easy to learn (just learn, not learn how to play well or properly)

I think if Joe Shmoe has just started to watch poker, and wants to give it a shot hes going straight to the hold'em tables.

Hold'em is also the perfect game to watch and give a non-player the impression that its easy. Its so simple, they get a monster like AA-JJ or AK then the go all-in and win abunch of money.
The never play the hands that AA is raised and the raiser picks up the blinds, Or show Gus Hanson call with 97s completely miss the flop and fold to a bet. Thats boring.

They always see the big action hands, they always see the times that the 97s catches and stacks the KK.


I dont think this could be done with stud or omaha.

[phish]

holdem has more bad players, but bad players are easier to beat in the hi/lo games.

So I guess this means that you need to be more game selective in the hi/lo games, but given a choice between a holdem game or a stud hi/lo game each with 2 horrible players, choose the hi/lo game.

[ohnonotthat]

Excellent point.

- nh

omaha 8/b and stud I think are somewhat easier to beat, but it depends on the players. People play stud and omaha 8/b to chase, and don't really understand what are good starting hands, and what are not, so you can really make some money. Hold em is full of idiots, and I have lot more variance when I play it, which is why I strictly play 7 card and omaha 8/b cash games, and hold em tourneys. I think pot limit omaha is one of the hardest games there is, so if you were thinking omaha hi, then I would say that is not true at all.

[winky51]

Stud: definitely easiest to beat and it is not difficult to become good at. It is a game of information and live cards. The suckouts are harder because you usually have players drawing to inside straights when 1-2 of their cards are already gone. Or drawing to 2 pair when you already have them beat. Also they must choose from 3 cards, not 2, to make a mistake before betting commences.

Omaha 8: Tough game to master, 6 hands to read, players raise with more hands here thinking they are ahead. Everyone stays in the pot to the end almost. But from what I heard from some players is that all you have to play is a hand with an ace or 4 paint to the nut str8 and you beat the fish.

Holdem: easy to learn, difficult to master. Each fish can have 5-10% to beat you which can add up a lot. variance I think can be higher. Lots of sheep at holdem. But the one good thing is multitabling. Stud and O8 its harder to do.

I think Stud for steady money increase, 4 tabling holding for money making potential per hour.

[ QUOTE ]

Since as a winning player you'll play close to break-even poker against these experts while feasting off the nitwits holdem will often seem like the easiest game to play. Be assured it isn't, however, it is the scene of the greatest number of overall (overall = 6-7 out of 9) soft games and will therefore appear to be "easy".

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a baseball analogy here.

.300 hitters will hit .200 against good pitchers and .400 against bad pitchers.

Seems like most of the "bad pitchers" are playing NL Hold'm.