This is a discussion on Diversity within the online poker forums, in the Tournament Poker section; Berry-patch in the Desert
For many poker enthusiasts, “Poker” simply means: No-Limit Hold’em--- and throughout the post boom years this has been hard to argue (untrue,
For many poker enthusiasts, “Poker” simply means: No-Limit Hold’em--- and throughout the post boom years this has been hard to argue (untrue, yet hard to argue.) Initially seized upon by eager marketers upon as the pauper-to-a-king Chris Moneymaker myth, No-Limit has, over the years since 2003, come to be discussed by everyone wearing a hoodie as the best game ever--- “The Cadillac of poker”--- NL has gone from almost never played to almost only played.
For the first few years of the boom, there was more dead money in poker than ever before. This led to poker rooms capping buy-ins --- a "protection" measure designed to keep the bad players from losing too fast. Once the hemorrhaging was controlled, hobbyists had a chance to breathe deeply and look around. When they did, they found information being shared on an unprecedented scale. It is largely due to this in my opinion, the general public plays NLH better than they did 10 years ago. A lot better. Pot limit Omaha, too. But this is not true of the traditional limit poker games. If anything, people play stud, razz and stud 8 worse than they did 10 years ago. Limit Omaha 8 play has improved a bit, but Omaha 8 is the one game that everyone believes they play at an expert level.
I have personally always believed that anyone who is serious about making money playing poker must know how to play all the games. This is more important today than it ever was. This should significantly affect your thinking about value in tournament poker. WSOP limit tournaments are structured to make sure there is lot of play on day two. The increased starting stacks have improved day one for the better player.
($1500 is a lot of money for most poker players. The Golden Nugget has lots of limit events with buy-ins starting at $250 and the best 1 day tournament limit structures you will find. And, obviously, the level of play is considerably lower than WSOP tournaments.)
As far as tournament choices go, it is important to ask yourself “would you rather have a small edge in a big tournament or a big edge in a small tournament”.
18th May 2017, 12:49 PM
Game: holdem ftw
Originally Posted by davidkopp
I have personally always believed that anyone who is serious about making money playing poker must know how to play all the games. This is more important today than it ever was.
I am really interested in some explanation on why you think that. Because I've actually always thought, that you should focus on one game type and master it to be successful at poker. I am only amateur, recreational player with no plans on being a grinder. I will probably never come to the answer by myself, so I would appreciate some thoughts on that statement from you .
BTW. there is also interesting prediction I've heard few times lately: that mixed games are future of poker. Would you agree with that?
19th May 2017, 3:07 AM
If someone is happy to play 1 2 No Limit holdem, learning the other games is probably not essential. But if you compare 1 2 no limit games to to 1 2 no limit games 10 years ago you will see that the players have gotten better, A lot better. Take 2007 player who made a respectable $9 an hour playing 1000 hours in 2007 (proof that he was winning because played better than his opponents). If he play the same way today he would definitely not be a winning player. The caliber of play in traditional limit games has not improved much. And in the stud format games (razz, stud high and stud 8) I believe people play worse now. So it is certainly worth the time to learn.
In higher limits, good players must go play in what ever game the bad players are playing . Once you get to green chips. anyone who just plays NL holdem (no matter how well they play) is at a severe disadvantage.