Which do you think can be more profitable? I have been thinking PLO because not as many people are good at that as in NLHE, at least Durrrr says so.

What is your favorite?

How hard is PLO for a beginner to learn and become profitable?

Do you think PLO is going to become the new NLHE a couple years down the road?

Bonus about neither: How do professionals become good at these games? For instance, Doyle Brunson. How the hell did he become so good when he doesn't have the resources that we all have today between books and this forum.

1more I swear. Durrr is my favorite player. How did he become good? I know he deposited 50 and started playing 6.50 sng's but like did he read books about the game? Was he just naturally good? (he said it isn't natural, btw)

Just want to hear some opinions on this stuff

There is generally a balance in poker games when it comes to profitability. The more popular it is, the more bad players come into the games, but also the better the winning players get. The less popular games are running less often but the field is generally softer.

I play NLHE mainly.

I don't know about this, but I think once you learn which starting hands are good you can probably beat up to 25plo.

No. I think it will get more popular but it will not overtake NL, except in the nosebleeds.

Doyle got good just by playing it and working it out for himself, he had many poker friends that used to play and learn together. AFAIK.

Playing a ton of hands, and working it out by himself and with his friends. He is obviously got the natural attributes to be a poker player otherwise we'd all be durrrr by now.

Thanks. Good answers

1. I would say PLO since generally everyone knows NLHE now and there has been so much written about it and so many great strategy books, etc.

2. I only play NLHE...and generally only online.

3. Can't answer.

4. I think NLHE will reign as the king for a while.

5. Check out the book Deal Me In.

6. I once heard something that I think is very true about the best poker players in the world: these are extraordinarily bright and talented people and they would be excelling at WHATEVER profession they chose...it just happened to be poker. Did you ever notice that most of the truly great players are engineering majors in college or have graduate degrees in math or spent their lives analyzing numbers on Wall Street or as accountants? I think most of the best players are just really, really bright people that could have made just as much money in the stock market and that could have been just as well-respected in other fields. Look up the backgrounds of Dwan, Greenstein, Seed, Laak, and look at their college majors and things like that and you'll see that these are people that were generally just destined to do well in life. They make succeeding at poker seem a lot easier than it is. I could be wrong, but I think Dwan was one of the engineering majors that dropped out of college.

Dwan was an english major lol.. but ya i know what you are saying

That applies to everything, not just poker in particular. Every one of the best people in their respective department are often people that were destined to succeed no matter what career they choosed. They all have share the same determination and discipline to accomplish anything they want.

.

nlhe has been around for ages and there is a ton of info on it which will get you to a decent standard of ability. theres like 5 major training sites with hundreds of videos, theres a ridiculous number of books out there etc. most regs at all limits dont have very exploitable preflop games, and above 1knl its v.hard to take money off people post flop (dwan is talking about high-stakes games when he is in interviews ldo)

plo is relatively new in terms of popular poker games. as such, theres not as many good players at it relative to bad/ new players. furthermore, because of the variance its easier for fish to run hot over the short term and thus not realise they suck. its just generaly a weaker game atm in terms of mid-high stakes (which is what dwan is referring to)

plo is more fun to play for sure. but if im playing to make money then nlhe because i can play and win at higher levels than i can in plo.

its pretty hard if u have no clue about relative hand strength and position. most beginners dont even if they like to think that they do. you would be making a lot more errors than if u play nlhe 1st and get decent at that before switching.

yes, nlhe is dieing a death in terms of mid-high stakes. theres a lot of people converting to plo.

in todays games doyle brunson isnt considered good at all. he would be an underdog in a lot of 200nl 6max games online. he might be ok in full ring though, but yeah hes like the original huge nit.

when he was learning however, the standard of poker games was much lower. you had a ton of gamblers who didnt know what they were doing and were just looking for action. there was no info so it was easier to get good at it because the ratio of good players to bad players was so favourable.

obviously he worked hard, but most of poker is just basic logic and simple maths. the games he used to play in when he was winning a ton were really soft.

worked really hard on his game. took pokerstove and took a calculator and worked things out basically. like working out optimal lines based on his range of hands which gets to a certain spot. the only natural ability he has is a more logical brain than most. durrrr is an absolute animal of a player though.

Hasn't he not lost in a tv appearance for years and years? Doyle is the man!

Ahhh you crushed my dreams - as a multiple uni dropout (accounting and computer systems engineering) I was beginning to foresee a bright future lol

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he still comes out ahead almost every episode of HSP I've watched. Also, saying he's the original nit is pretty ridiculous... he was well known for his aggressive style when he began writing about poker.

No offense but I think you are underrating the guy a lot by saying things like he's just like the original nit or that he would be an underdog at a 200NL 6-max game...

I mean, we all know that the game was really soft when he was the best but that doesn't mean he didn't evolve from there. He has shown to be a great player on every televised show and tournament I've seen without being spewy at all, he plays a very conservative poker but is never afraid to gamble. I would personally still pick Doyle over a bunch of pros nowadays.

That would be like saying that players such as Chip Reese or Stu Ungar would be underdogs just because the game was softer during their times. If they were alive they would most likely have adapted to today's game.

sigh... knew id upset the brunson fan boys.

haha Doyle is very aggressive, so I don't agree with you on the whole nit thing but I do agree on everything else basically.

Durrrr is the man... I want to see him at the final table at the WSOP lol that'd be awesome. I hate the people winning it like cada and eastgate. OH and i want ivey to win it badly... Ivey deserves more than anyone else in the game right now, IMHBO (added a b for beginner)

.

People have been saying for a long time that PLO is the game of the future.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but my guess is that PLO will always be played wherever Hold'em is played simply because there will always be a certain number of Hold'em players looking for a break from their main game.

That alone suggests that someone who made PLO their main game is always going to find profitable games to sit in.

BUT - and it's a big but - the problem with PLO is the swings. The variance is absolutely eye-watering, and unless they have cast iron bankrolls and the mental stability to go with it, a lot of the guys who are currently switching to PLO/thinking of switching to PLO will end up running back to Hold'em with their tails between their legs.

I'm also guessing that it's possible to beat anything up to $25 plo (maybe higher?) simply by understanding starting hand strength and position. That's because a lot of players at those stakes have no idea about either. In fact, a lot of players at those stakes have no interest in learning about either - it's PLO, right? Let's gamble!

I've seen it suggested that when it comes to learning PLO, someone who's never played Hold'em has a significant edge over someone who has. I think there may be some truth in that. (Four way, UTG, bottom two isn't quite the monster you're used to it being etc)

Good Luck