Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Big_Rudy, post: 1931083, member: 73333"] Agree with points from both of these posts. You have to consider what is YOUR best game. Also, structured-bet games should lower varience somewhat from that found in big-bet, no limit format games. The problem comes-in when you consider player-pools on top of that. Take Razz, for example. Usually a really tiny player-base, at least on current US-serving sites. So even if it's your best game, making it your main game really isn't practical. Also, if you consider that few people play Razz, it's highly likely that the average skill-level of those few who do is significantly higher than the average skill-level of your typical micro-stakes NLHE donkey. So Razz should be lower varience, but is that really the way to go? Small, probably fairly educated player base, few games, difficult tables. You'd lower your varience, but you'd also likely lower your income potential significantly in the process, and may not even be able to be a consistant winner at these games, if you can find them at all. I think in the current US market you pretty-much have to limit yourself to some form of Hold'em to see any significant player base at all. Perhaps PLO Hi, perhaps. Even in Hold'em, limit should offer lower varience, but again, there is the small player-pool, few games problem. So, if you're going to restrict yourself to some form of NLHE, you want to lean toward (tournament/sng-wise) something that is played in a full table format and has a longer, slower structure. I think that's the best option out there at the moment. Yes, other forms of poker have lower varience. They also have fewer players, fewer games, and probably a more educated group of players. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us