[sk8ram]

My post is going to start with the classic

IT DEPENDS

line that we're so used to hearing.


I would say that for players that are used to holdem or other types of poker, transferring to stud is easier than hi/lo. This is simply because the hand values are the same and players only have to worry about one end (the high).


Admittedly though, stud hi is incredibly difficult to master, and although new players probably pick up the general strategy faster (when to play flush draws, how to bet with premium pairs, general starting hands...), they are unlikely to develop a good feel for the game at higher stakes without a LOT of experience.

These players converting from other games to hi/lo generally have a hard time grasping the idea of playing to scoop and starting hand values.

On the other hand, stud hi/lo is much easier to learn if you're coming from a blank background of playing very little of any poker game. New players can easily learn the scooping potential of big hands (such as babies with a flush draw), and can normally find folding easier when they only have half a pot to contend for.

Hi/lo is also very difficult to master, but I would say it is maybe a little easier than hi when it comes to it.

As you progress through the stud hi/lo limits though, the play is fairly consistently bad quite a way up, so although the game is difficult to master, the rewards are still pretty huge.

So, concluding, my post has basically pointed out that it's very hard to show that either game is any harder to learn or master.