Comparing varieties of Poker
- Thread starter hii a_ooiioo_a
- Start date
I'm not a poker player but I am a trader and any trader has a gambler's blood. I was really grabbed by the ads for "Lucky" but was bigtime disappointed by the first show. Man, what a great show that could have been, instead it was depressing and dumb. I'm guessing someone who knows the ropes came up with show idea, then the network suits decided it had to be dummed down and made interesting to people who don't know a jack from jackoff. Now it's wasted the chance to grab an audience and will probably be ditched in acouple more weeks.
To those who fancy the online gig,
I considered playing this way after having moved too far from any casino to visit regularly (back when I was pokering instead of trading). I never did, and there were a few reasons why. One, and probably most importantly, how does one have any assurance that collusion is being prevented? I hear the rooms are monitored for this, but how well? And, how much can you lose before they catch the culprits?
My second reason is the absence of psychology involved in one's play. How does one pick a table? One of the first and most important rules of play when I was learning was to pick the right table, one with atleast 3-5 players (depending on the room's activity and table fill ratio) you know you're better than. How does one gauge a player's actions? You can't read anyone's moves. Okay, I never got to the point of reading anyone so this is not so important. But online, how would one ever learn?
As of right now, I figure that before I'd go back to the casinos I would play online to bone up on the basics. But as an end goal it doesn't seem like much fun, and generally more difficult to win.
Am I wrong?
I considered playing this way after having moved too far from any casino to visit regularly (back when I was pokering instead of trading). I never did, and there were a few reasons why. One, and probably most importantly, how does one have any assurance that collusion is being prevented? I hear the rooms are monitored for this, but how well? And, how much can you lose before they catch the culprits?
My second reason is the absence of psychology involved in one's play. How does one pick a table? One of the first and most important rules of play when I was learning was to pick the right table, one with atleast 3-5 players (depending on the room's activity and table fill ratio) you know you're better than. How does one gauge a player's actions? You can't read anyone's moves. Okay, I never got to the point of reading anyone so this is not so important. But online, how would one ever learn?
As of right now, I figure that before I'd go back to the casinos I would play online to bone up on the basics. But as an end goal it doesn't seem like much fun, and generally more difficult to win.
Am I wrong?
Quote from uptik2000:
No Limit Texas Hold'em. The King of all Poker games.
Why do you say that? Because they use it at the big tournaments? Well, they HAVE to use it. The hands are fast so suited for tournament play. Also, it's about the only game where players will make BIG bets with little in the way of a hand... also good for tournaments.
However, you don't see much bluffing. You hardly ever see anyone try to trap an opponent with a check and raise, you rarely have more than 2 players in for the flop, and there's almost no betting after the 4th card.... They're already "all in on Q, 10" before the flop. Mildly entertaining at best.
The winner mostly lucks out rather than plays well. (That's probably true in most games, but even more so in Hold 'em).
For my money, Hold 'em is almost as stupid as "Indian".
I think limit holdem would be the best game to win at, assuming the limits were high enough. Also holdem is the most popular and this allows for a better selection of games.
You have to be able to overcome the rake. I have tried low limit holdem and omaha high and now think holdem is the better game. In omaha high the starting hands run closer in value and the game is slower . As a result of these two things your fluctuations in capital will be larger.
As an example in omaha at a 4/8 game the other night I played 14 hours and won only 7.5 pots ... and lost $595. I do not play nearly as many hands as most people, only about 35 percent or so if not in the blinds.
In holdem one hand will dominate another more than in omaha so your advantage will be higher. You may play a lesser percentage of your hands than in omaha but you will get more hands per hour.
In any game though table selection is very important.
You have to be able to overcome the rake. I have tried low limit holdem and omaha high and now think holdem is the better game. In omaha high the starting hands run closer in value and the game is slower . As a result of these two things your fluctuations in capital will be larger.
As an example in omaha at a 4/8 game the other night I played 14 hours and won only 7.5 pots ... and lost $595. I do not play nearly as many hands as most people, only about 35 percent or so if not in the blinds.
In holdem one hand will dominate another more than in omaha so your advantage will be higher. You may play a lesser percentage of your hands than in omaha but you will get more hands per hour.
In any game though table selection is very important.
I love hold'em. I love poker. I have no way of declaring what game is "easiest to win".
However, the most pure and readable game would be five card stud. Not played much these days. Games go in and out of style. In "The Cincinnati Kid", 5 card stud was the game. Edward G. Robinson against Steve McQueen, who draws to a Royal. Realistic? No way. But at the time, that was as popular as Hold'em is now.
Seven card stud has been the basic "kitchen table" game for as long as I can remember. Draw poker was the game before I was born. But I think I learned poker playing that when I was too young to even recall now. I know I was playing for money by 10.
Omaha and Hold'em seem better suited for casino's....lot's of hands, lots of rakes.
Believe it or not, I learned how to WIN at Hold'em from watching my son play on the computer when he was about 6 or 7. I had a very good simulation program, and I couldn't win at it. He was home with the chicken pox, and I stayed home with him. I taught him to play poker with a deck of cards...think probably 5 card stud, because of the simplicity..just wanted him to know what hands had what value. Then he got on the computer and kicked ass on the Hold'em simulation program. What I noticed was he did not play like me. He either raised or folded. He never called. He never passed. I tried it at a real table as soon as I could (we lived in Vegas at the time). It worked! Then I got too confident, and it did not work quite so well against better players. Not that the strategy was faulty....it's about your opponent's ability to read you as a player.
In the end, I would have to say the better players will win in any poker game. The skills cross over. I don't know if any game is "easier".
So I guess I should retract my opening statement....the easiest game to win in is the one that has the weakest players at the table.
I can say what "poker" game is the most difficult to WIN at....beyond a doubt -- Caribbean Stud...the all time sucker casino game. (Not really poker, but they call it poker).
Peace,
Rs7
However, the most pure and readable game would be five card stud. Not played much these days. Games go in and out of style. In "The Cincinnati Kid", 5 card stud was the game. Edward G. Robinson against Steve McQueen, who draws to a Royal. Realistic? No way. But at the time, that was as popular as Hold'em is now.
Seven card stud has been the basic "kitchen table" game for as long as I can remember. Draw poker was the game before I was born. But I think I learned poker playing that when I was too young to even recall now. I know I was playing for money by 10.
Omaha and Hold'em seem better suited for casino's....lot's of hands, lots of rakes.
Believe it or not, I learned how to WIN at Hold'em from watching my son play on the computer when he was about 6 or 7. I had a very good simulation program, and I couldn't win at it. He was home with the chicken pox, and I stayed home with him. I taught him to play poker with a deck of cards...think probably 5 card stud, because of the simplicity..just wanted him to know what hands had what value. Then he got on the computer and kicked ass on the Hold'em simulation program. What I noticed was he did not play like me. He either raised or folded. He never called. He never passed. I tried it at a real table as soon as I could (we lived in Vegas at the time). It worked! Then I got too confident, and it did not work quite so well against better players. Not that the strategy was faulty....it's about your opponent's ability to read you as a player.
In the end, I would have to say the better players will win in any poker game. The skills cross over. I don't know if any game is "easier".
So I guess I should retract my opening statement....the easiest game to win in is the one that has the weakest players at the table.
I can say what "poker" game is the most difficult to WIN at....beyond a doubt -- Caribbean Stud...the all time sucker casino game. (Not really poker, but they call it poker).
Peace,
Rs7I doubt anyone can, but I'd love to hear the explanation for the popularity of electronic poker, and similarly slot machines. As I see it, until games of chance which are determined regardless of human skill remain profitable and popular, our species has not progressed one iota. The one-armed bandit should be reserved for lab rats and other "lower" life-forms. Are we really so simple? What am I saying? Of course we're that simple, what other reason would there be for NASCAR.
Check that, I love NASCAR. Where else can you see a thirty car pile-up and not be in the son-of-a-bitch?
Check that, I love NASCAR. Where else can you see a thirty car pile-up and not be in the son-of-a-bitch?