Is there really more skill in Big Bet Poker???

[WyattErb]

well, i have been playing lots of NL and PL tourneys lately. And now i got the feeling, that the "bad" players r usually winning or up in front in these tourneys.
When i see people raising pots with Q2's and they win against AK, or JJ or the like, i am asking myself what the hell is going on??? its not that bad beat thing again, i played 6 tourney, each averaging about 200entrants, and i never placed less than 30th place(1 time 2nd, and 1 time 6th)!
but there was a guy, well, he had just won a big tourney with over 600entrants, and was with me on the last 2 tables, and i had him down to about 2500chips, about 1 hour later he was up to 45000chips....he beat an AK with his KQ, or with Q2's AK, 88 vs. TT...is that just internet poker, or how can one guy get that lucky???

[1800GAMBLER]

Rabbit's foot.

[rockoon]

The thing about potlim/nolim is that the value of a hand is not as closely linked to its win percentage as it is to table image. In limit a case can be made that there is no table image that would make it correct to play complete trash from up front but in pot/nolim, a case can be made. Making good decisions on the larger bets later in a hand more than overcomes any supposed negative value a hand began with.

[Stew]

I think that one thing you have to keep in mind when discussing luck and tournament poker play is this. Over the long run, the skilled player will win more money than a non-skilled player. However, over the course of a single tournament or a few tournaments, the lesser skilled player's luck may be substantially better than the skilled player.

The skilled player over the long run just understands the concepts that is required to be a consistent winner (or at least in the money) than the non-skilled player.

Thus, in the short-run you may see luck as being a significant factor, but over the long-run skill will prevail.

[crockpot]

tournaments in general, especially pot/no limit, only involve great skill if hands are played out and the good player knows to be doing a lot of bluffing but little calling. when people are playing crazily as you described, they are essentially reduced to a hand-holding contest, and in most hold 'em confrontations the better hand is not that far ahead. in your examples, the Q2 was roughly 30% to win against both the jacks and the AK.

this is why the good players don't want to risk all their chips on any hand less than aces. they'd rather grind their stacks up with some well-timed bets. this applies to both limit and pot/no limit events, except that it's easier to get all in at no-limit.

[Shaun]

In tournaments, no, in cash games, yes. As skilled NL player will hammer poor players in NL but may do badly for long stretches against poor players in limit. In NL, a very good player gets opponents to make huge mistakes that are often impossibke in limit.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
As skilled NL player will hammer poor players in NL but may do badly for long stretches against poor players in limit

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean there is more skill in playing the game.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Wyatt,

I believe there is more skill required for consistent success in PL and NL poker, and especially in tournament play, simply because you can afford fewer mistakes. One mistake can bust you ... and often will.

In the course of a single tournament, or even a week or two, luck plays a substantial role. But over the long term, the cards even out and skill -- more good plays and (especially!) fewer mistakes -- will bring the consistent winnings.

That having been said, some sites are demonstrably better than others in rewarding skill over luck, simply because of their structure. The more hands that are likely to be played, the more decisions that are to be made, and hence the greater advantage to the skillful player.

For example, at PartyPoker players start with only 800 chips, and the blinds escalate quickly. That means fewer hands played, fewer decisions made, and a lesser edge for skillful players.

By contrast, at PokerStars players start with 1500 chips, and the blinds escalate slower. That means more hands played, more decisions made, and a greater edge for skillful players.

Cris

[Shaun]

It means what it means. The bottom line is that each game requires different skills, but if you have 2 players who are equally skilled in their respective games and play at comparable levels, the player who is great at no limit has a risk versus reward advantage over the player that is great at limit, IMO. His weaker opponents are much easier to exploit. The limit player cannot force his opponents into as many critical errors, simply because the structure does not allow it. A no limit player can force his opponents into hugely unprofitable situations that are very profitable for him.

The problem is, it is harder to find NL games where players are making huge mistakes than it is to find limit games where players make many, many small mistakes. Also, NL is bad news for fish. Fish can survive much, much longer playing limit, thus its popularity in casinos. In limit a fish screws up and looses a few bets- in no limit he loses his stack.

The question is pointless to argue, Mason Malmuth will say limit requires more skill and Doyle Brunson will say the opposite. I say that I play for money and NL is easier money for me. I like being able to bluff and I like being to able to protect my hands- REALLY protect them. To each his own though.

[WyattErb]

Thanks for the replies, guys(and girls?) ill try to keep up the good work! btw, i am soon going to Vegas! so there is no more internet poker for me right now;-)