Russ Georgiev
05-06-2005, 10:01 AM
leporeva@hotmail.com (Vince lepore) wrote in message news:<bbdd5c2d.0309151349.468ff5a0@posting.google.com>...
> There has been much debate as to which type of poker game requires the
> greater skill to be a consistent long term winner. Many have
> professed that NL is the hardest game to at which to win in the long
> run. The place where the most skilled players live. GCA has just
> posted his thing he calls a theory in which he claims that pot limit
> is where the best poker player are and no limit is nothing more than a
> move in game requiring little if any skill. Mason Malmuth has written
> that Limit Poker requires the most skill to be a long term winner. I
> agree with Mason.
>
> Each type of play requires a varying degree of each of the necessary
> poker skills to be a winner. NL is unquestionably the most dangerous
> way to play poker. One mistake or just a very unfortunate
> happenstance can cause extreme stress to your bankroll. One miscue and
> your opponent can get all of your stack or you his. Pot limit requires
> your opponnent to be a bit more skillfull or lucky to get your chips.
> He cannot usually get them with one swoop. He must help build the pot
> before he gets you to commit. However, neither of these way of
> playing poker require great skill to get all of an opponents chips.
> As you can see one or two miscues during a session and you can take a
> lot or lose a lot. In fact you could play perfect poker for almot an
> entire session and be very fortuante or misfortunate on the last hand
> of the night and have your session decided. You might argue that a
> session is not the long run and you would be correct but that does not
> in anyway discount the fact that these types of poker are one or two
> shot games whose betting options do nothing that requires great skill
> to get your opponents chips. However the design of these games are
> great for tournaments and also a good place for scammers and cheats to
> prosper. Scammers and cheats prefer these types of games because they
> lack the poker skill necessary to win at limt poker.
>
> Limit poker is the tourghest form of poker to be a long term winner.
> It requires great patience and I do not mean waiting for a hand. In
> Limit poker most bets, if not all, are relatively small compared to
> pot size. Given that most hand vs hand strength is not overwhelming
> and the relatively small betting vs pot structure limit requires a
> player to win more often (more hands) than in both NL or Pot Limit.
> It is very very unusual and extremely unlikely for a limit poker
> player to play an eight hour session, win one pot and go home a
> winner. Unless of course you play in those low limit passive games
> Gary Carson always talks about. The point is you've got to play more
> hands at limit than NL or PL. When you play more hands you have to be
> better at playing the game because each play carries with it the
> potential for a mistake. Certainly the relative cost of a mistake at
> limit vs the pl and nl is small. But that is not the driving force
> behind winning at poker. The relative cost of the mistake may be
> small when compared to each game but the cost of a mistake within each
> type of game is what poker is about. In limit the cost of a mistake is
> the greatest. It is because the edge that one has is so much less in
> limit that a mistake is much harder to over come. In NL you can make
> an abundance of mistakes on a number of previous hands and then play
> one hand perfectly against an unsuspecting or even a suspecting
> opponent an recoup all of your losses caused by your previous
> mistakes. PL is similar although a bit harder to make up for a lot of
> mistakes. In limit one mistake could require hours and hours of
> playing and winning to nullify it's effect.
>
> I will admit that I like playing NL and PL, poker although I confine
> my play mostly to tournaments. The reason is obvious. These forms of
> poker are exciting. But hey are not "Cadillac" poker games, they are
> gunslinger poker games. Something limit doesn't offer except playing
> heads-up or 3 or 4 handed.
>
> I wrote this in defense of all of my limit playing poker buddies. I
> may not have done a good job. I'm sure others can do better. I would
> be interested in hearing others opinions.
>
> Vince
The best evidence offered that PL and NL cash poker games are more
skillfull than limit is one simple fact. For every PL or NL game,
there are probably 300 limit games. If casinos thought PL or NL would
keep the bad players in money longer, these games would be played.
Problem is the casinos don't, nor does anyone who really knows poker.
Just change all the games to PL and 99% of the players would be broke
in a very short period of time.
I don't count the smaller online games or tournaments such as sit &
goes.
Russ Georgiev
> There has been much debate as to which type of poker game requires the
> greater skill to be a consistent long term winner. Many have
> professed that NL is the hardest game to at which to win in the long
> run. The place where the most skilled players live. GCA has just
> posted his thing he calls a theory in which he claims that pot limit
> is where the best poker player are and no limit is nothing more than a
> move in game requiring little if any skill. Mason Malmuth has written
> that Limit Poker requires the most skill to be a long term winner. I
> agree with Mason.
>
> Each type of play requires a varying degree of each of the necessary
> poker skills to be a winner. NL is unquestionably the most dangerous
> way to play poker. One mistake or just a very unfortunate
> happenstance can cause extreme stress to your bankroll. One miscue and
> your opponent can get all of your stack or you his. Pot limit requires
> your opponnent to be a bit more skillfull or lucky to get your chips.
> He cannot usually get them with one swoop. He must help build the pot
> before he gets you to commit. However, neither of these way of
> playing poker require great skill to get all of an opponents chips.
> As you can see one or two miscues during a session and you can take a
> lot or lose a lot. In fact you could play perfect poker for almot an
> entire session and be very fortuante or misfortunate on the last hand
> of the night and have your session decided. You might argue that a
> session is not the long run and you would be correct but that does not
> in anyway discount the fact that these types of poker are one or two
> shot games whose betting options do nothing that requires great skill
> to get your opponents chips. However the design of these games are
> great for tournaments and also a good place for scammers and cheats to
> prosper. Scammers and cheats prefer these types of games because they
> lack the poker skill necessary to win at limt poker.
>
> Limit poker is the tourghest form of poker to be a long term winner.
> It requires great patience and I do not mean waiting for a hand. In
> Limit poker most bets, if not all, are relatively small compared to
> pot size. Given that most hand vs hand strength is not overwhelming
> and the relatively small betting vs pot structure limit requires a
> player to win more often (more hands) than in both NL or Pot Limit.
> It is very very unusual and extremely unlikely for a limit poker
> player to play an eight hour session, win one pot and go home a
> winner. Unless of course you play in those low limit passive games
> Gary Carson always talks about. The point is you've got to play more
> hands at limit than NL or PL. When you play more hands you have to be
> better at playing the game because each play carries with it the
> potential for a mistake. Certainly the relative cost of a mistake at
> limit vs the pl and nl is small. But that is not the driving force
> behind winning at poker. The relative cost of the mistake may be
> small when compared to each game but the cost of a mistake within each
> type of game is what poker is about. In limit the cost of a mistake is
> the greatest. It is because the edge that one has is so much less in
> limit that a mistake is much harder to over come. In NL you can make
> an abundance of mistakes on a number of previous hands and then play
> one hand perfectly against an unsuspecting or even a suspecting
> opponent an recoup all of your losses caused by your previous
> mistakes. PL is similar although a bit harder to make up for a lot of
> mistakes. In limit one mistake could require hours and hours of
> playing and winning to nullify it's effect.
>
> I will admit that I like playing NL and PL, poker although I confine
> my play mostly to tournaments. The reason is obvious. These forms of
> poker are exciting. But hey are not "Cadillac" poker games, they are
> gunslinger poker games. Something limit doesn't offer except playing
> heads-up or 3 or 4 handed.
>
> I wrote this in defense of all of my limit playing poker buddies. I
> may not have done a good job. I'm sure others can do better. I would
> be interested in hearing others opinions.
>
> Vince
The best evidence offered that PL and NL cash poker games are more
skillfull than limit is one simple fact. For every PL or NL game,
there are probably 300 limit games. If casinos thought PL or NL would
keep the bad players in money longer, these games would be played.
Problem is the casinos don't, nor does anyone who really knows poker.
Just change all the games to PL and 99% of the players would be broke
in a very short period of time.
I don't count the smaller online games or tournaments such as sit &
goes.
Russ Georgiev