Kind of a theoretical question/thread here.

It's obvious that NL Holdem is the most popular game, and probably has the biggest amount of donks.

General thoughts on that statement?






But there are other poker games out there, some that may be harder games.

What is a harder poker game than NL Holdem? More than one?


Theoretically speaking, if we assume that you, or me, or any player in question, is equally good at every poker game out there, let's say 8 out of 10, a very good player, which game should he play?


If the average player is a bit better at a certain game other than NL Holdem, but this game is harder than NL Holdem, would that game yield more profit?


What is the most profitable game out there, excluding NL Holdem?

What is the most profitable game, including NL Holdem?

What about the 2nd most profitable?








Horse is pretty damn fun, and I enjoy it. It's also pretty challenging. What game is the average player weakest at?



This is kind of a rambling thread, and kind of vague, but I'm interesting in what everyone's opinions are.

plo

It's an interesting question. From what I've gathered, being a winning player at stud is just a matter of knowing a certain system which is, aside from variance, unbeatable. The same with starting hands in PLO. It's only in NHLE where there's genuine complexity where system plays won't hack it. (Or, perhaps, PLO is over complex such that hand reading is impossible, which equals gambling, imo.) But as the only game I've studied is hold 'em, limit and non, I'd be curious to hear other's thoughts.

I beat the first 5 card draw sng i ever played using a simple system based off of techniques i learned played nlhe if that helps, so i'm 100% in that game, hope that helps

I have to state the obvious here but the most profitable game is the one you have the greater edge over your opponents. That could be any game and is determined by each player's capabilities.

Basically this. That's what I was gonna say.






If your question regards what are the possible edges over many different games ... well I'm probably not qualifed to answer that.

In SSI, Brunson was pretty sure that NLHE was the game with the biggest gap between the top pros and the average fish. But now we have SO much literature and TV coverage and everything that the average NLHE player now knows a lot more about the game than they used to. Of course the pros are better now too but I'm sure this has affected NLHE much more than, say, 7-Stud or Triple Draw or something.

I'd phrase the question like this: In which game do you expect average fish to lose money fastest while playing the Big Game (or other big rotation game)?

I think that there really is a very small number of people who are really qualified to answer that question.


I know I can't.....I can't play that many games well enough to really be able to answer that one and I doubt there are many around who can.


Good luck though.

I'm sure someone like Barry could give us a fairly good guess... wink wink nudge nudge

If you mean Barry Greenstein...than yea...probably.....Good luck getting him to post here though...even as nice a guy as he is I'd probably float some odds against him posting in this thread.

Questions of this sort are asked/answered ad nauseum, so let's save everyone some time.

Here are some good, fairly recent threads regarding skill levels of games and winrates.

Cliff notes: PLO is the most complex poker game, has high returns to skill, and is more fun; PLO is the "Ducati" of poker. Diehard Hold'em fans can't believe it, mainly because they like Texas. Cadillacs are kinda ghetto.


NLH vs PLO Winrate Theory
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...675&highlight=

skill to luck ratio in various games?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...093&highlight=

Why high stakers play Omaha but I dont...
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...t=#post4644378

Is PLO the new cadillac of poker?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...013&highlight=

(In each of these threads, my posts are the most informative.)



1. I like your contradictions: You went from saying that PLO is simple, to saying it's too complex. You also went from saying PLO is subject to a winning system to saying it is just gambling. Hmmm....


2. Hand reading is very much possible in PLO. But instead of trying to guess all four cards, you try to classify your opponent's hand, such as "made-hand", "straight draw", "flush draw", "made straight with redraw," etc.

PLO is considered the most positional poker game outside of draw games. Position wouldn't be important if hand reading weren't possible.

(for a discussion on position and PLO vs. NLHE, read the thread "Video: The Differences between PLO & NLH" http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...d.php?t=241144 )


3. PLO is more complex than NLHE. Check out the links and the Antonius interview below.




PLO wasn't spread in Vegas when SSI was written (1979). It came to Vegas sometime in the mid 1980s.


Here's what one of the top NLHE players, Patrik Antonius (aka, "God"), thinks:


"LH: What is your favorite game to play, and why?

PA: Pot-limit Omaha is my favorite, because it is the most fun; you get to play more hands than you do in any other game. Also, there is a lot of flopping involved, and the board changes all of the time. For example, on the flop, whichever cards come usually make a straight or a flush possibility. Then on the river, there are always tough decisions to be made. When a straight or a flush card comes, or the board pairs, you have to know whether to value-bet, call, fold, raise, or bluff. There are a lot of interesting situations that come up, and there is also a lot of bluffing involved. I think that pot-limit Omaha is really a game of decisions.

LH: You're known for your no-limit hold'em skills; how enjoyable do you find that game?

PA: No-limit hold'em is not my favorite game if it is a ring game with no antes. In that kind of game, you just have to play very tight. There are much better cash games to play, but it is OK if you play with antes. It can actually be a lot of fun if you play with antes in a shorthanded cash game."
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/17580

PLO is more complex than Omaha 8?




There are some good responses here, very interesting.

I know it's kind of a wandering, theoretical question, but it's surely worth asking.

I think I'm looking so hard, I bent over backwards and ended up with my head up my ass.


... or something.


How ****ing poetic was that?


.... not poetic at all, just reread it.

"From what I've gathered, being a winning player at stud is just a matter of knowing a certain system which is, aside from variance, unbeatable." - Conan776



Is this statement widely regarded as true? It makes stud sound so easy, isn't it much more complex than that?

Among casual players, I think mixed games like HOSE or HORSE are very profitable. A lot of otherwise decent players get beat up at this game because they don't adjust from game to game. Guys that play hold'em relatively well mess up at O8 or 7 stud because they value and play hands the same way. And stud 8 brings out the chaser in almost everyone, which is very sweet for the guy who plays well.

I definitely agree with that. Another great thing about HORSE, Razz and Stud are back to back.

How many times have you been playing HORSE with causual players and one of them says "oh ****, we're playing stud now" after donking off tons of chips with a good Razz hand?

It's widely regarded as true by people who don't play stud.

Yeah right, you just want to keep all the people who know The System off your tables!

Yup. Hi/lo games are generally simpler than their high-only counterparts. Mainly because folding is an easier decision since the pot is often getting split and your pot odds are reduced.

see the thread:

skill to luck ratio in various games?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...093&highlight=



Stud is more complex than Limit Hold'em. Unsure about its relation to NLHE.

However, there is a lot of bluffing and metagame when it comes to using boards to represent a certain hand, as well as hand reading. So I don't think Stud is as "systematic" as that poster suggested.

I feel as if a large component of how a good players can exploit their edges over bad players is stack sizes so my input is the >> the stack sizes the >> the pro's edge.

Me vs Ivey 10bb's I stand a gr8 chance of winning in that game.
Me vs Ivey 30bb's I think I would be a marginal looser probably.
Me vs Ivey 1000bb's I would hate to play, he would pwn my soul... I hate range merges give me head aches !

FYP on the assumption you are more Jamie Gold rather than Doyle Brunson.

Jamie Gold is bad at spelling?

Lol, Does Ivey really have any edge on any competent tourney/ SNG with 30bb's?

Remember he has been playing deep stacked poker his whole life and I would bet his isn't all though familiar with push/fold optimal play.

Well lets put it this way, if there was ANY Huggy v Ivey poker game I know where I would put money if I could bet on the result.

Omaha

The really big NL games are often played with a cap so I'm sure Ivey will be fine.