How much is luck affecting the different games?

[simonpe]

What i really would like to hear is some opinions about which games are easier to beat by skill.

For the selection you make please note that this is a full ring with only poor players with very little skill. You, however, is skilled at the choosen game.

[JavaNut]

Easier to beat by some skill at lower levels or by being very skillfull always winning at all levels?

My answer is based on the first assumption, a game that is easy to beat with some skill at lower leves (or to rephrase that, once you are at a certain level of skill, you have this game beat).

Limit hold-em. Why? The fish are not aware of the fact that they are losing a lot of small amounts by playing badly. A good solid TAG game is a winner except against LAGs who actually know what they are doing, and they usually enjoy other types of poker more, as they are more profitable for them.

Edit: I can actually now see that I voted on the wrong category [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] that's it, I now go back to playing monopoly.

[LadyWrestler]

I voted NL Hold'em. IMO, it is easier for a skilled player to beat and it has less variance than Limit. I did not consider Omaha, Razz, and Stud, because I don't know enough about them to sensibly consider them. I do know quite a bit about 5CD, though, and would have picked that one if you had offered it as an option.

[soon2bepro]

Razz is much easier to be skilled at than NL hold'em, for example. Even stupid players can't do so bad. But you're saying they are that bad. On the other hand you're saying that you're good in every game, but virtually the only game of those when you can play close to perfect is razz. Given equal skill difference between you and the rest of the players, the best format for you is NL hold'em. The thing is that NL hold'em usually contains players of much higher skill level than razz, since few pros will play razz.

Anyway, point is your premises make it hard to choose, because we have to measure your skill and their lack of it relative to the particular game.

[wizexel22]

I agree with Soon2bepro, it really does depend on exactly HOW skillful you are. For a pretty good player, I think the middle NL games are very profitable. Not too many fish, but enough for better players to exploit. If you are very skilled, I think the higher limit games are the best. In the long run, your skill in that game will be very profitable, while eliminating the lucky all-ins by some fish. If you are just plain awesome, I think high NL games are the game for you. You can win a ton in one night, and if there is a big gap in skill level in NL, the lesser guy will get run over. The problem is, you have to be VERY good in a high NL game as there are usually other very good players as well.

[sweeng8]

I voted PL omaha Hi/Lo as the easiest to beat, but I would put NLH as 2nd. I think as 'poor' is a relative term, you find that even 'poor' holdem players have some level of understanding on how to play, whereas in omaha hi/lo players play without the slighest idea on how to play. Being mostly a limit game, it also cuts back on horrible suck outs.
As far as varience goes i would say normal omaha is the worst by far- seems to be very much a gamblers game