I'm not exactly sure where I should put this thread, but I was curious to hear your responses on how you think guys (or girls..) like Phil Ivey or other top, notable pros who have been seen playing high stakes limit online or live in recent years (including Mixed games) would fair in limit hold 'em games versus some of the better 2+2 limit posters (likely less well-known). I also acknowledge that a thread like this has most likely been made previously as I am relatively new to the site. Anyways...

It seems unlikely that Ivey reads many of these 2+2 limit discussions as some limit pros/experts ranging from 20/40, 40/80, 60/120, etc but who cannot necessarily bankroll games much higher. Without diligently reading 2+2 threads, watching instructional videos, and thoroughly understanding numerous marginal spots in the newer game of limit hold 'em today, it seems impossible that Ivey & Co. could realistically compete in the long term in many (6max/10max games- I touch on this in next paragraph).

That being said, I feel, along with many of you as well, that I may have put more work and study into my limit hold 'em game than many of these well-known top pros and have read and discussed hundreds of hands from these forums as well (I feel like I am consistently beating almost any live limit hold 'em game I have entered in <60/120, but feel uncomfortable playing any NL game higher than 5/10 [or 1/2 NL online for that matter]). Although Ivey and other top pros obviously have a better overall feel for the game, I think that Limit Hold 'Em (6max to 10max [Ivey has proven he can compete HU vs top pros such as Matt Hawrilenko and other German specialists] is too much of a mathematical for him to perfect...I gotta run a quick errand before Heat game and will definitely lose my train of thought but you get the idea. Thanks in advance for the responses.

Well, first of all, there are definitely big name pros who know a lot about FLHE. (Negreanu and Harman come immediately to mind).

Beyond that I wouldn't know, but it would seem to me that in any game a specialist has a big advantage. I believe Robert Williamson III is a PLO specialist, for instance, and he does very well against big time NLHE pros playing in PLO games. And you identify exactly the reason-- the thinner situations. At the most expert levels where FLHE play approaches game theory optimality in heads up situations, a good pro who is moving over to limit is unlikely to have enough experience to play unexploitably.

On the other hand, in a game where other players are making errors, the pros could do very well based on generally having a sophisticated understanding of exploitative poker, even if the specifics are different.

are you basing Harman being good at LHE on the fact that she wrote the LHE section in one of the Super System books?

I think the consensus from other threads was that of the name pros, Ivey and Antonius were both sick good at HU LHE and could be in the top group (if they're not already) if they chose to specialize. Dunno if that's the case/how they would fare in ring games, which at the nosebleeds only really run around a fish (either live or online)...as far as regularly running live LHE games i feel like 200/400 at the Commerce is about the biggest that routinely runs. 100/200 runs fairly often during WSOP at Bellagio and it's usually a mix of winning live pros, winning midstakes internet players, and one random guy/fish. I'm not as familiar with online LHE post-Black Friday but the biggest games regularly running pre-BF were something like 30/60 or 50/100 with the occasional bigger game filling around a fish.

40/80 and 60/120 live still have lots of fish so I'd think beating one of those is within the realm of possibility for one of these big names with a good poker mind, assuming they cared, etc. those games roughly equal 2/4 or 3/6 or 5/10 online...

From first and secondhand experience (sweated a buddy who played in a LHE event a few days ago in Vegas) Harman is straight bad at LHE...openlimping, coldcalling first in, donking out, playing hands poorly, etc. As a LHE specialist I tend to assume/have experienced that all name pros, unless otherwise proven, are not good at LHE.

Why would a name player want to regularly play 40-80 or 60-120 at (say) Commerce, unless they were busto or close to it?

yeah of course that's a good point also; live limit holdem doesn't rate super high up there in terms of hourly or sexiness or gambool or whatever it is that drives the mindset of a name pro (although i would wager that many of them are not winning players at whatever cash game they play, but i suppose that's a discussion for another thread or for nvg perhaps)

THIS!

Just fwiw i played with ivey in the 1500 lhe event and he took a couple of standard beats in blind vs blind spots. He then proceeded to whine and moan and throw his cards. Sounds like a glass full of class if you ask me.

if you dont throw your cards once in a while then you arent a live pro

as for the op, who cares? what use is it to think about whether guys that dont even waste their time playing 1500/3000 would beat 40/80 grinders? were on the internet, we should think about more important things, like who would win in a fight, super saiyan goku or mewtwo?

If I remember correctly Ihatejuice said in an interview he considered Patrick Antonius and Ivey to be the "end-boss" in HUHU
Hoss tbf also refused action to PA after a while. At that time he played about anyone I think.
It kinda baffles me how it is possible given how little those players play LHE

I guess I'm not a live pro.

It is good to learn LHE as that is generally a weak area for many highstakes mixed game players.

...and, once you learn it, it will be a weak area for you as well! #nashramblerofpokergames

Didn't they play a lot of $2000/4000 LHE in Bobby's Room?

I guess I'd be bored playing a 3-day tournament too where the entry was than a big blind of what I'm used to playing.

a bracelet is a bracelet isnt it ? plus the tip money change ( for ivey) to win the tourney

Yeh the high stakes pro's would do well in the midstakes live hold'em games (20/40 - 1/2). But really the thing that makes them good is their ability to play all forms of poker well, because after 2/4, its pretty much never straight hold'em, its at least a HT, and usually a lot more games than that. This means a lot of hold'em players have a difficult time to moving up to white chip games because they are really only one trick ponies and now they have to learn 5 other games.