Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

What game and game conditions require the most talent? In other words, what game (stud, nl holdem, limit holdem, omaha, draw, etc.) and game conditions (sng tourney, multitable tourney, heads up, ring game, b and r, online, shorthanded, fullhanded, heads up, etc.) can be least played with a formulaic strategy and therefore difficult to teach, thus requiring talent and "cardsense"?

We know that 1-table SNGs and tournaments can be beat with formulas that would allow a newbie to not be too dominated by a pro. Razz, lo-ball, and jacks or better can also be beat with a near formulaic strategy. Therefore, these don't require much talent, just study and practice.

My guess is that the game and game conditions that requires the most talent (aka, is the least teachable) is very deep stack heads up no limit holdem played at brick and mortar with both players facing each other, with no dark glasses and walkmans allowed.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

I would think that NL Holdem requires more talent than most games. Of course it also allows for a variety of winning playing styles.

I think tournaments require more playing style than regular tables, especially freeze-outs. You've got only one shot and you need to make it count.

Face to face requires more skills than an on-line game (although there are some skills to on-line play that face to face does not have). In particular you need to both use tells and defend against them.

I think mid-level stacks require more skill play than big or short stacks in tourneys. Big stacks have a lot of lee-way and can afford to make a few mistakes. Short stacks have very few options and are dictated more by the table and the cards than by skill.

Finally, I think a four to six handed table requires more skills than heads-up play. There are so many playable cards and so many strategies you can use. It requires a lot of knowledge about the players and their stlyes. Heads-up is more of a game of guts with a taste of caution mixed in. Nine and ten player tables are more about waiting for opportunities and position.

Not that I am saying other games don't require a high level of skill, but I think a five-handed NLHE live tourney table with approximately equal mid-level stacks requires a lot of skill to navigate through. That would be my vote.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

There is no right answer to this question because different games require different sorts of talent. It's like asking whether golf requires more talent than basketball (to paraphrase Tommy Angelo).

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

Anything that can easily be taught requires less talent than something where you need to be intuitive. Obvious example: Very deep stack NL holdem vs. 5 card draw jacks or better.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

PL7CS with incredibly deep stacks has to rank pretty damn high on that list. However, it's almost never played.

No form of HU poker is going to rank high, as they can actually be fully solved mathematically. (Yes, including deep stack NL hold'em.) It has to be atleast a threehanded game.

The decently often played game that I struggle the most with is shorthanded PL Omaha.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

5 handed Pot Limit Omaha
5 handed Pot Limit Holdem

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
5 handed Pot Limit 6 card Omaha

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]

No form of HU poker is going to rank high, as they can actually be fully solved mathematically. (Yes, including deep stack NL hold'em.) It has to be atleast a threehanded game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this more please? I don't quite buy it yet.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anything that can easily be taught requires less talent than something where you need to be intuitive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So rock paper scissors requires more "talent" than chess?

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

Different skills for different games. No more, no less, just different...

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No form of HU poker is going to rank high, as they can actually be fully solved mathematically. (Yes, including deep stack NL hold'em.) It has to be atleast a threehanded game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this more please? I don't quite buy it yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

A mathematical discipline aptly called Game Theory can be used to solve problems such as this. Now, GT solutions won't allow you to win, they'll only completely stop you from losing. (Which against an opponent with even a single leak will amount to the same thing in the long run.)

However, once a third player is added to the mix many of the equations are no long solvable.

Poker has to be multiway to be really complex. Now, I don't think any human can do the required equations in their head, but it's trivial to have a bot play flawless HU poker. (It's still very, very hard to make a bot that takes advantage of any leaks you happen to have.)

The Poker Academy Pro has a couple of GT HU bots for hold'em in them.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

TALENT?

OMINOUS!

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

Different games require different skills.

Maybe you should ask, what game is the easiest to learn?

-HoldemPokerPlyr

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No form of HU poker is going to rank high, as they can actually be fully solved mathematically. (Yes, including deep stack NL hold'em.) It has to be atleast a threehanded game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this more please? I don't quite buy it yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

A mathematical discipline aptly called Game Theory can be used to solve problems such as this. Now, GT solutions won't allow you to win, they'll only completely stop you from losing. (Which against an opponent with even a single leak will amount to the same thing in the long run.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Game theory does not account for tells. The OP specified a B&M game. If Chris Ferguson took off his hat every time he didn't have any hand at all, and took off his glasses when he had the absolute nuts, he'd go broke pretty quick.

I'd still agree that heads-up doesn't take as much poker talent as a game with 3 or 4 players, but anything that is affected by human emotions can't be solved mathematically.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

Stop the quibbling over definitions.

"A mathematical discipline aptly called Game Theory can be used to solve problems such as this. Now, GT solutions won't allow you to win, they'll only completely stop you from losing. (Which against an opponent with even a single leak will amount to the same thing in the long run.)"

To put it a little more simply: An optimum strategy, from a Game Theory standpoint, is not going to exploit flaws in the opponent's play: it's not going to win the most money against a human opponent. Thus, it doesn't quite fit the accepted usage of "optimum."

So, if a specific form of HU poker were solved, and a bot programmed to carry it out, the bot wouldn't win the most money, but it would be unbeatable.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
We know that 1-table SNGs and tournaments can be beat with formulas that would allow a newbie to not be too dominated by a pro. Razz, lo-ball, and jacks or better can also be beat with a near formulaic strategy. Therefore, these don't require much talent, just study and practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying you can beat a game with a "formulaic strategy" is ridiculous. You can beat low limit anything with a "formulaic strategy" - play good hands. Assuming that one wants to move up in limits they will eventually have to change their "formula" and eventually adjust to their opponents as they're playing doing things that will often be incorrect in their formula or the opponent will pick up on the pattern and force you to make mistakes. Unless someone wants to play 2/4 for the rest of their natural lives you cannot follow some magical formula.

There's no way to possibly say what game requires the most talent because it is dependent on a huge amount of variables.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything that can easily be taught requires less talent than something where you need to be intuitive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So rock paper scissors requires more "talent" than chess?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that chess can be easily taught?

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

The terms need to be much more thoroughly defined, and the question much more specific, before this discussion could actually go anywhere. Are you asking for what game is hardest to teach? Are you asking for what game gives the biggest edge to those who have excellent hand reading skills? Are you just looking for the game where the expert will have the biggest edge over poor players? Maybe, what game would it be hardest to write a successful 'rote strategy' for?

You also have to figure out a way to convince us that poker requires an inborn capacity for intuitively making many proper decisions, that cannot, or is extremely difficult, to learn. Somebody with years of experience and a brilliant mind may be able to recall information more quickly, process it more quickly, and be able to read the hands of other players more successfully than somebody who has this so-called "Cardsense." Does that count as talent?

I don't get the RPS -> Chess comparison either. In fact, here, I'll teach you optimum RPS strategy: do everything one-third of the time.

I think the RPS and Chess example is confusing "requiring intuition" to "requiring lucky guessing" or "requiring gratuitous use of psychic powers." You can't win at RPS if you're breathing through the wrong eyelid.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No form of HU poker is going to rank high, as they can actually be fully solved mathematically. (Yes, including deep stack NL hold'em.) It has to be atleast a threehanded game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this more please? I don't quite buy it yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

A mathematical discipline aptly called Game Theory can be used to solve problems such as this. Now, GT solutions won't allow you to win, they'll only completely stop you from losing. (Which against an opponent with even a single leak will amount to the same thing in the long run.)

However, once a third player is added to the mix many of the equations are no long solvable.

Poker has to be multiway to be really complex. Now, I don't think any human can do the required equations in their head, but it's trivial to have a bot play flawless HU poker. (It's still very, very hard to make a bot that takes advantage of any leaks you happen to have.)

The Poker Academy Pro has a couple of GT HU bots for hold'em in them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry for being difficult, but I'm just genuinely curious about this thought. I guess the reason this concept is difficult for me is because I do way better in 3 and 4 man games than in HU NL games.

Is it really possible to make an unbeatable bot? I'm sure the bot could eventually figure out your bluffing frequency and certain tendencies, but on the other hand a human player is aware of how he is percieved by the bot and can act accordingly in certain situations. And if you are afraid of becoming predictable, then take a dice to the match.

I've always thought that the shorter the game becomes, the less cards matter. And then the less cards matter then the less math matters.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it really possible to make an unbeatable bot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but only for HU play.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the bot could eventually figure out your bluffing frequency and certain tendencies, but on the other hand a human player is aware of how he is percieved by the bot and can act accordingly in certain situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are assuming that the unbeatable bot also plays optimally against you. It does not. A bot that can extract the maximum from you HU is still so far away that it's not credible threat in the foreseeable future.

The math finds a pair of strategies where each player loses the minimum. If one player moves away from this equilibrium point he loses more, no matter in which direction he moves. So unless you play the same strategy as the bot you lose. But you won't lose much, as the bot doesn't capitalize on any specific mistakes you make.

Dynamically figuring out where you wandered off to, and finding a new strategy that exploits you for the maximum based on your new strategy is immensely more complex than this.

Given a long enough sample size Phil Ivey is never going to win against this bot. But Ivey will bust you alot faster than the bot will.

A bot that busts you as fast as Ivey does is just a pipe dream at the moment.

See the difference between Ivey and the bot now?

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

One way to think about it is that the bot plays perfect defense. It's not going to lose. It will however only win what your ineptitude gives it.

Phil Ivey plays damn near perfect defense, so the bot is going to beat him very slowly.

But the bot is also going to beat you very slowly, because while you play worse defense than Ivey it's still hopefully not really attrocious.

Ivey also plays damn near perfect offense. So he is going to capitalize on your mistakes majorly. While you both lose to the bot it will take Phil longer to lose to the bot. And Phil is going to bust you much, much faster than the bot does.

Get the metaphor?

Bot my butt!
 

I love to hear all of this talk about the perfect Bot and how it could beat any Hold-Em player by playing defensively.

For those of you who are on the border - don't believe it.

First of all Hold-em is not only a game of skill, but also a game of luck. If what these poeple are claiming is true, that there is a perfect bot that will always win, and that players like Phil Ivey nearly mimic the bot, then Phil should ALMOST NEVER lose!

I give Phil a lot of credit, he is absolutely one of the top five players in the world at what he does (in my opinion), but it NOT beacuase of his perfect defensive play (although he is good at defense), it is because of his varied aggressive attack.

The perfect defensive bot would probably lose to the majority of the players on this forum, amateurs included. If the bot holds KQ and there is an ace on the board, the bot will ALWAYS fold to a big bet. Why? Because it is the right thing to do!

Give me that player anytime!

This talk about a bot reminds of of all of those sci-fi movies of the seventies that showed intelligent computers taking over the world. Computers and bots alike only do what they are told. That is all they can do. That is all they will ever do.

BRING ON THE BOTS!

Actually, I think this worth a post of its own. So I will.

Re: Bot my butt!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The perfect defensive bot would probably lose to the majority of the players on this forum, amateurs included.

[/ QUOTE ]

You extrapolated how the bot would play from a metaphor I used to discuss Game Theory in general. And you reached an utterly incorrect conclusion.

I used 'defensive' because the math used actually attempts to calculate the optimal strategy for both parties, without any attempts to abuse the weakness of the opponent.

It's not even a theoretical discussion about GT bots for HU play, you can buy one off the shelf. The AI department at University of Alberta built one as part of their research. (Which also includes a HU bot that _does_ try to attack your weakness.)

For a more thorough overview of GT in general read the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

[ QUOTE ]
If what these poeple are claiming is true, that there is a perfect bot that will always win, and that players like Phil Ivey nearly mimic the bot, then Phil should ALMOST NEVER lose!

[/ QUOTE ]

This part you actually did get right. If Ivey plays HU against someone, and they can both reload if broke, then after a few thousand reloads Ivey is going to be ahead against almost everyone. He will only be behind or even on a very rare fluke, or against equally skilled opponents.

Obviously I didn't mean 'never loses' as in 'never loses a single buy-in', but as in 'given an infinite number of hands it's won't be behind'.


For every other poker scenario I totally agree with you. Bring on the bots. At a full table I have no doubts I can beat the best bots in the world right now, and I am not very good at poker. But I am just as certain that no living human can beat the best bots HU. Just make it three-handed and the humans have the advantage again. Because the HU game can be, and has been, fully solved, which the three-handed game can't.

Even HU I'd actually rather play the bot than Ivey. I'd lose to both, but I'd lose faster to Ivey, as he can take advantage of my leaks. Ivey wouldn't lose to me, but he'd lose to the GT bot as well. This isn't actually strange at all if know what you are talking about.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
One way to think about it is that the bot plays perfect defense. It's not going to lose. It will however only win what your ineptitude gives it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This metaphor was no good. It causes confusion.

I'll instead state what actually happens. The bot knows the perfect play for both parties. It assumes you will make the perfect play every time. None of us will make perfect plays every time, and some will wander pretty far from perfect play. Whenever a human makes mistakes the bot won't charge extra for that.

Lets take an example from limit hold'em. You are UTG with A9s, the by far worst player at the table is David Sklansky. You fold. This is the play the bot would make every time.

Now, even at a table with 9 horrible, horrible calling stations the bot would fold, when the correct play actually is to raise. It's unable to account for their weakness.

It can't take advantage of the specific weakness of your style. This will soemtimes lower the EV of a play, as it assumes and plans for a perfect response. But no bad play the opponent makes can turn a move that would be +EV against a perfect player into a -EV move. (HU any deviation on the part of the opponent will make the play more +EV actually.)


Ps. Please don't turn this into a debate on whether it's right to fold A9s against 9 clones of David Sklansky. It's just an example pulled of my arse. Ds.

Re: Bot my butt!
 

[ QUOTE ]
But I am just as certain that no living human can beat the best bots HU.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Poki's Poker Academy has the best comercial HU limit bot in the world and there exist many players who can beat that. But then there also exist some non-comercial bots people have made. But I have never heard anyone claim that their bot would beat any human.

Re: Bot my butt!
 

"
I love to hear all of this talk about the perfect Bot and how it could beat any Hold-Em player by playing defensively.

For those of you who are on the border - don't believe it.

First of all Hold-em is not only a game of skill, but also a game of luck. If what these poeple are claiming is true, that there is a perfect bot that will always win, and that players like Phil Ivey nearly mimic the bot, then Phil should ALMOST NEVER lose!"

When used in a discussion like this, the only reasonable definition of "unbeatable" or "won't lose" is that there will be no edge against this bot, regardless of how you play. That's the most skill can do for anybody in a game with an element of randomness.

This, of course, all amounts to how close HU hold'em is to being solved. I don't know, but from what little I have seen/read, it seems that a HU game with no betting after the flop could probably be solved, or very close to it. The game tree branches out to an astounding number of branches if we make any considerations after the flop. I can't comment further, because I don't know how developed bots are in.

Another way to think about how a GT approach would work, but wouldn't be perfect, is to think about a simple bluffing play.

An optimum bluffing frequency against one player would be such that regardless of the frequency that your opponent calls you, your results do not change. It's a strategy that is unexploitable.

But would this strategy win the most money against a player who makes fundamental errors? Like say, an opponent that will call every single time? I think this example shows both the power of an unexploitable strategy, and the very, very prominent shortcomings.

Re: Bot my butt!
 

The largest poker game completely solved is Rhode Island Hold'em which has about O(10^9) leaf nodes in the game tree. Hold'em has about O(10^18) leaf nodes so we are not even close to solving this. But it is possible to simplify hold'em and solve this new game with less nodes. This is how it is possible to create "pseudo optimal" poker bots.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything that can easily be taught requires less talent than something where you need to be intuitive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So rock paper scissors requires more "talent" than chess?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that chess can be easily taught?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think chess can be easily taught. Whether the person is GOOD at chess is another matter. I don't think there's much difference between "skill" and "talent" though. Maybe, as you play chess you get better at it, defining it as a skill that you acquire. I think that in the same way, people acquire poker skills as they play and get better. The difference is that chess has no luck factor, whereas rock/paper/scissors does (IMO, although I'm sure that's debatable). If a luck factor makes proficiency be referred to as "talent," then all types of poker proficiency are made up of both skill and talent. Although, this assumes "talent" to be nothing more than luck.

On a side note, I don't consider rock/paper/scissors to have any skill factor. I'm assuming that a game of rpc has a 1/3 probability of player A winning, a 1/3 probability of player B winning, and a 1/3 probability of a tie.

So, from what I said above, it seems the definition between the words "skill" and "talent" are blurred, but I believe the OP meant skill to be explicit things (such as hand selection, reading the board, betting correctly, etc.) and talent to be implicit things (such as bluffing, reading, making moves, etc.)

Which game requires most talent then?
My guess would have to be tournament style NLH, not necessarily because it's the most talent-intensive at a mastery level, but I think because the learning curve for explicit NLH skills such as hand selection is higher for most players than that of other games. In other words, I think people know more in general about how to play NLH because of it's overwhelming popularity in books and TV, and as a result, more talent is required to win at these games. Of course, a case could be made about TV making people WORSE at NLH, but I think that's probably a minor effect.

Re: Bot my butt!
 

[ QUOTE ]

The perfect defensive bot would probably lose to the majority of the players on this forum, amateurs included. If the bot holds KQ and there is an ace on the board, the bot will ALWAYS fold to a big bet. Why? Because it is the right thing to do!


[/ QUOTE ]

You would lose soooo horribly against PokiBot. Why should a bot fold KQ on an A-high board ALWAYS? Because he is "scared" of the ace? Bots dont play that way. In a heads-up game he will analyze how many hands you are playing preflop, raising preflop, betting the flop with etc... Obviously your range in heads-up games is so big, that it would be very correct to call the flop with KQ, and the bot will do it. If you would have ever played against PokerAcademy, you would know that sparbot often calls flop bets with K-high or Q-high even... defensive doesnt mean "only play the nuts".

Re: Bot my butt!
 

To elaborate: defensive in this context means "unexploitable." We usually think of defensive as a tight, risk averse style. That isn't what we're talking about here.

A decently illustrative example, while it is far from optimal play, is to imagine you're horribly out-classed in a heads-up NLHE battle, with medium sized stacks. Like, awfully out-classed. You don't even belong in the same country as this opponent, let alone the same ballpark. Let's say you realize this, and have decided your goal is to do everything in your power so that your opponent can't bitchslap you as he rightfully should. You're trying to be defensive, and to prevent him from exploiting the overwhelming skill difference. What do you do? You push all in, before the flop, a LOT of the time.

The "defensive" play outlined above is much more aggressive than a "normal" strategy.

pot limit anything...
 

i'm currently on a 54 session win streak in pot limit games. its just sick the advantage a good player has over a poor player in pot limit ragrdless of game. to the extent i will be happy to let a emotionally challenged opponent make up a game, practice it for a month, and i will take him on cold if the game is deep stack pot limit.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What game and game conditions require the most talent? In other words, what game (stud, nl holdem, limit holdem, omaha, draw, etc.) and game conditions (sng tourney, multitable tourney, heads up, ring game, b and r, online, shorthanded, fullhanded, heads up, etc.) can be least played with a formulaic strategy and therefore difficult to teach, thus requiring talent and "cardsense"?

We know that 1-table SNGs and tournaments can be beat with formulas that would allow a newbie to not be too dominated by a pro. Razz, lo-ball, and jacks or better can also be beat with a near formulaic strategy. Therefore, these don't require much talent, just study and practice.

My guess is that the game and game conditions that requires the most talent (aka, is the least teachable) is very deep stack heads up no limit holdem played at brick and mortar with both players facing each other, with no dark glasses and walkmans allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd vote for 2-7 triple draw and high limit 7 card stud.

though i wouldn't consider HU hold em to be easy by any stretch, if you can manage to put your opponent on a calling range (ie what hands he is willing to call a push with), you can show profit just by pushing hands that are +EV against this range.

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

The key principles are 1) how many decisions must you make, 2) what is the cost of a wrong decision, and 3) how much information do you have to make your decision on

So,
What game can least be played with a formulaic strategy?
Probably some version of 7 card stud, since with more information available and more streets to make decisions on, there would be more rules (ie. formula) needed.

What game is most difficult to teach?
Probably Pot or NL holdem, since so much of your success there relies on hand reading which is situational and opponent dependent. Obviously, hand reading is critical at all forms of poker, but the value you can get from good hand reading is much higher in pot limit/NL games. And putting your opponent on a hand range based on many viewings of their hand is more difficult. And hand reading seems more difficult to teach than any other poker concept I can come up with.

I’d also think cash games require more talent than tourneys, short-handed requires more talent than full-ring, live requires more talent than internet, pot limit requires more talent than NL which requires more talent than limit – due to the principles above.

-g

Re: Which Game Requires Most Talent?
 

[ QUOTE ]
you can show profit just by pushing hands that are +EV against this range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea but if you applied this idea to a bot, you'd have to realize that your opponents will go through different phases throughout a session that change his calling range. Can't just say "push XX and above when the board reads XXX." And I would think it would be especially difficult to program a bot that could react to an opponent who is able to purposely change gears.