Best book for learning 7stud?

[Andy B]

Physics is taught by teaching oversimplified versions of very complex concepts, and gradually correcting these oversimplifications. I don't think that poker is complex enough to warrant this kind of approach.

[ECDub]

[ QUOTE ]
Physics is taught by teaching oversimplified versions of very complex concepts, and gradually correcting these oversimplifications. I don't think that poker is complex enough to warrant this kind of approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you think 7CS4AP is the one and only book for players of all skill levels and that's all they need? I would have to disagree. I think that is bad advice for most new players. Jumping straight to the advanced books will be a lot more costly in the long run than picking up a decent middle limits book first to bring you up to speed with the advanced material. I progressed through the limits from the bottom and it is a different game at $2/4 and $3/6 than is described in 7CS4AP. The cards are the same, the game is the same, odds are the same....but the people you encounter are different. That's the difference.

[Lanzalot]

Learning 7-stud is still a good idea.
Get and study:

7 Card Stud: The waiting game by George Percy
42 Lessons by Roy West
7CSFAP 2+2 et al.
Elements of 7 card stud by Konstantin Othmer

[Jeffage]

[ QUOTE ]
with the hold 'em explosion why switch? it is good to learn to play different games, but the hold 'em games are so good right now.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you've played any 30 or 75 stud in AC lately, you'd realize the game is quite profitable to learn. At high limits, the play at stud tables is much weaker than at comparable hold em tables in my experience (this refers only to live play). Plus, variance is lower (not in terms of suckouts, but in money swings in my experience). Of course, good money can be made at both and I still play more hold em than stud overall - this is just my take though as it applies to where I play.

Jeff

[Duck Rabbit]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, variance is lower (not in terms of suckouts, but in money swings in my experience).

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that stud was a higher variance game due to the extra round of betting. Is this not true?

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, variance is lower (not in terms of suckouts, but in money swings in my experience).

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that stud was a higher variance game due to the extra round of betting. Is this not true?

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW I have always heard that as well.

[MRBAA]

Here's why stud rewards the good player more than he:

1) Exposed cards give you more information to work with in reading hands. Simply being able to remember what's out gives you an edge over some players!

2. Extra round of betting favors the good player in two ways: 1. It gives you better implied odds to limp in early and mix it up. 2 It gives you one more street to extract full value from bad players.

The big edge that hold'em has is that it's the game of choice for almost all the new/fishy players

[Jeffage]

The reason there is more "variance" in stud doesn't have to do with the extra round of betting really. It's more because A) the river card is dealt down (thus forcing you to pay off bets you wouldn't have to in hold em and causing you to miss some thin bets you'd make in hold em) and B) the fact that it's not a shared board game so suckouts are more frequent. For example, if you have AA in a hold em game and someone else has pocket sixes, it is hard for them to end up beating you. Also, say you have AK and the board is A 7 2 and you're against someone with A9 in hold em. It's tough for them to suck out. In stud, pair verse pair scenarios allow for more suckouts.

That said, I find there to be less variance in stud due to several other factors: generally less aggressive play and fewer opponents with any real skill even at high levels (I refer only to Atlantic City for this); many opponents who like to let free cards slide off; many opponents who will only raise later streets with a total boardlock, allowing you to always know where you're at; many opponents who won't bet the river without a monster; the fact that while there is more info to process than hold em and you have to pay much more attention, once you process the data, the decision is usually easy. This contrasts hold em where there are many more strategic gray areas.

I can go on and on, but I won't. I love both games for different reasons, but in my experience something like 75-150 stud is FAR less swingy and "easier" to beat than a typical 80-160 hold em game.

Jeff

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason there is more "variance" in stud doesn't have to do with the extra round of betting really. It's more because A) the river card is dealt down (thus forcing you to pay off bets you wouldn't have to in hold em and causing you to miss some thin bets you'd make in hold em) and B) the fact that it's not a shared board game so suckouts are more frequent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, since you apparently know what you speak of, this is quite surprising. My understanding from reading Mason's essays was that it's not so much the difference in structure between stud and hold'em that causes variance, but rather the size of the antes. Since low limit stud has a small ante, it has small variance, and since high limit stud has higher antes, it has higher variance. In essence high limit stud becomes more of a showdown contest, which gives no one an advantage.

(caveats: (1) I have barely played any stud. (2) There's a chance I'm misunderstanding what Mason wrote. (3) In all likelihood, I can resolve your statements with Mason's by positing that some of the high limit 7stud players today must really be atrocious, then, compared to the hold'em players)

[Jeffage]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding from reading Mason's essays was that it's not so much the difference in structure between stud and hold'em that causes variance, but rather the size of the antes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sort of true - as the antes go up proportionally, the variance increases. For example, 5-10 and 10-20 stud are tightly structured (witth a 50 cent and $1 ante respectively). 20-40 stud has a $3 ante, this jump makes chasing slightly more correct and punishes rock tight play on third - as in, you have to steal the antes more. 75 stud has a $15 ante, $25 bring-in. So yes, that's what Mason refers to as a roller coaster ride in his writings on it and it's true, esp. if you're playing against aggressive players who understand the impact of the structure (or just really loose aggro morons). I don't play against such individuals, so I don't have to go apeshit on third because they don't do that. I still do steal quite a bit though, but I can pick my spots. Also, my opponents are not that aggressive on later streets - if they were, the game would play differently.

[ QUOTE ]
In essence high limit stud becomes more of a showdown contest, which gives no one an advantage.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is WAY off. People generally play incorrectly for the structure (too tight, too loose, too passive, etc) so that is an edge. Also, the reason for the higher ante is to handicap truly expert stud players when they play idiots. The higher ante prevents them from losing their money AS QUICKLY. They still must go broke, but they get good gamble for their money and their faults A) playing dead cards, not raising to knock people out, not checkraising, etc, aren't punished as much in the short run. So it makes it a good gamble for them -- but they can and do go lose tons of money in the long run. Come down to the Taj Mahal and see for yourself.

I'd talk more but I have some work to do now.

Jeff