PLHE: The worst "good game" ever? |
|
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 7:57 pm GMT by snoogins47
Recently, I've had the pleasure of talking some of my old friends who get together to play small stakes home games every now and then to convert to Pot Limit when we play Hold'Em (before, it was only PL while playing Omaha, and that wasnt' a very common occurence)
It's by far my favorite betting structure for poker in general. I would hesitate to say it is my "best," because I have the least experience playing PL of the "big three."
It's commonly agreed upon that Pot Limit places the biggest emphasis on poker skill in general, especially on the later streets. Some may disagree, but I do not. The fact that the later streets are the times when your hand is already well defined, and these are also the times that there is more and more money going into the pot.
I believe this is one of the key differences in deciding how much short term success a poor player may have. How well defined hands are, and how many opportunities there are to wager large amounts of money when the hands are definitely more defined.
To that extent, I think that Fixed Limit Hold'Em takes more nuanced skill than NL. I don't think anybody can possibly argue that against very weak opposition, it's much easier to be a winning player at NL than it is at Fixed Limit. This key point above also would explain why NL and/or PL five card stud is ridiculous profitable against weak opposition, as would it explain why 7 Stud 8ob would be such as well. The idea, is that there are many many more opportunities that a skilled player can recognize as being hugely +EV, that can leave poor players clueless.
All of that aside, we have a bit of a dilemma here. A skilled player may think "Wow, I really wish more people played Pot Limit HE as opposed to any other betting structure, since I'd make more money."
Or, "I wish we could just play 7 Stud 8ob all day," or what have you. Anything like that.
I don't necessarily disagree with this intrinsically, but there's a very important point that many people ignore here.
The ridiculously profitable games will have a much lesser selection of fish.
Why's this? Think about the very beauty of this game. Think about why it is so popular. Even a moron can sit down and win big.
Think about why poker is so profitable. It is merely because morons will not necessarily lose in a day, or a week, but will necessarily lose over the long haul.
I can compare this to any of the "big" skill games. Do you know a sucker alive who would consistently gamble on a game of chess against a grandmaster? Is there a person alive who plays Bridge every three months that would go to the Bermuda Bowl and challenge some of those teams to duplicate bridge for money? Do you know a drunk alive who shoots drunken stick every few weeks that would go challenge Jeanette Lee to a $1000 match of 9-Ball? (Well, I would, but it would have nothing to do with the money or the game. Damn that woman is fine!)
It just doesn't happen. Why? Because the lesser skilled player has an unbelievably small chance of winning.
This is the beauty of poker. And this is why I embrace fixed limit poker, rebuy tournaments, satellites, etc.
Back to the point: Pot Limit is, in my eyes, and many others, the best test of skill as far as Hold'Em is concerned. The chances of a fish having a winning session at PLHE are, I would wager, less than any other form of HE. And the amount of negative expectation they have sitting in a game of players better than them would also be higher.
Meaning, aside from degenerate gamblers who cannot stop playing if their life depended on it, the casual players won't last. It just cannot happen. Bad players lose their money too consistently.
I'm sure I have more musings and thoughts on this, but I'm already running late. Anybody else want to share any thoughts on this?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:35 am GMT by fonzerelli_79
i recently played pot limit for the first time at the casino
i havent played it enough to agree with you 100% on what you say about it being the true form of poker - but perhaps i will with more pl games under my belt.
It does restrict maniacs a little though if there are a few heavy betters in the hand it pretty much switches to a NL scenario
(p.s. read some of your blog - damn your bankroll is high for a 20 year old! - congrats)
Posted Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:29 pm GMT by Rikje-Suede
| snoogins47 wrote: |
It's by far my favorite betting structure for poker in general.
It's commonly agreed upon that Pot Limit places the biggest emphasis on poker skill in general, especially on the later streets. |
PL is for me (I started playing Holdem just a year ago) the only game where I do feel at home. According to table-position you can see the flop for not too many chips with some promising hands, say K J off....
More important... before you are forced to go "all-in" with a very good (but maybe just second best) hand, mostly you have more info, than when "maniacs" in NL bet 'm all pre-flop.
I'm not the one to say anything about Poker Skills yet, but the last few months I'm doing reasonably well. 
Posted Sun May 01, 2005 4:05 am GMT by tame_deuces
Just read this post.
And I thought it was a very good post. Kudos.
And I would have say...in my book it depends.
No Limit can also be played with great nuance and elegance. It's just that it has the the ability to explode into a great big bang for your money. Playing a trap hand in pot limit means not having two maniacs at your table, and then you can see the flop cheaply. In no limit, sure you can play your trap hand....but you need to KNOW the table if you do. Only playing position helps, but if you can read players you can do much more.
I guess my point is that in no limit you can play very elegantly (not saying I do), but you always balance the thin line of someone firing up the main guns if they catch on to you. I won't pretend to know too much about pot limit. But I often get the impression you will be wanting to play the small trap hands, because they go in cheap while they are worth little and gain much when they are worth much. I think maybe you need much more skill in playing the big kahuna hands in pot limit than you do in no-limit and vice versa - you need more skill playing the small trap hands in no limit than you do in pot limit.
Ofcourse...one could refrain from playing them...like many do. Maybe that is why no-limit often gets this ugly reputation as the non-nuanced hold'em variant. A table just erupts in a preflop raise match between the big hands and when nobody hits they check it to the river because they are afraid of betting. An elegant player could wreck havoc on a table like that though 
Posted Sun May 01, 2005 4:46 am GMT by JohnnyCache
The only problem with pot limit is it draws a crowd that knows more about poker then limit and NL.
Posted Fri May 27, 2005 10:02 am GMT by pm_french
Why DOES PL seem to attract the more hardcore audience and why is someone more likely to lose more money consistently in the game (as mentioned in the original posting at the top of the thread)?
Is it simply because players don't have the preflop allin at their disposal as easily (though with a few loose players and maniac PL probably comes essentially the same as NL)?
Posted Fri May 27, 2005 1:04 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
| pm_french wrote: | | Is it simply because players don't have the preflop allin at their disposal as easily (though with a few loose players and maniac PL probably comes essentially the same as NL) |
Yes, but only on later streets. You can avoid the maddening all-in pre-flop of many maniacs and get a better idea of where you stand once the hand begins.
Sometimes, though, I actually see more money in the pots on average than in NL, because someone bets the pot nearly evety time. People don't seem to understand sometimes that just because you CAN bet the bet, it does not mean you MUST bet the pot.
I agree with Snoogins, though. PL can be very profitable, although I prefer PL Omaha to PL Hold'em. Limit, PL, and NL, are 3 very different games that require very different skills.
|
|
