Stud or Hold'em - which is more complex?
Lee Munzer
less experience and knowledge than reaching that level in stud. Stud is a
considerably more complex game, and expert stud players have a larger
advantage over "good" opponents than expert holdem players do."
Position #2 - Jonathon Kaplan "Stud may appear more complex (strategy-wise)
than holdem (to many), but it is not. Much of the strategic consideration in
stud is known/knowable (because much of what counts for info in stud is
publicly known). Much of the info needed to make decisions in higher level
holdem is more subjective and less easily known. this assymetry of "ease of
discerning info" creates a perception bias that stud is more complex, but
that is wrong."
I've snipped about 70% of J.K.'s excellent post which goes on to support his
point (although I'm not sure he's correct). You can read it under "Should
you excel at one game, or play them all well?"
Allowing that your opinion may vary depending upon what limits we are
discussing, what do you think?
Lee
Gary Carson
Lee Munzer wrote in message ...
>
>Allowing that your opinion may vary depending upon what limits we are
>discussing, what do you think?
I think it doesn't vary with the limits at all. It varies with the
opponents. A lot of people tend to use the limits as a proxy for the skill
of your opponents, but that's just silly. It's the skill of your oppoenents
that matters, not the limits. And, not whether it's 7-card stud or hold'em.
I think that hold'em is enherently more difficult to master, but since it
also seems to attract more bad players, it doesn't matter that it's
difficult to master since you don't have to master it to do very well.
Gary Carson
Krmin
>Position #1 - Iceman stated, "Getting to the "good" level in holdem takes
>less experience and knowledge than reaching that level in stud.
>
>I've snipped about 70% of J.K.'s excellent post which goes on to support his
>point (although I'm not sure he's correct). You can read it under "Should
>you excel at one game, or play them all well?"
>
>Allowing that your opinion may vary depending upon what limits we are
>discussing, what do you think?
>
>Lee
>
What I am going to say is based on personal experience with myself and one
other player. My comments assume the experience applies to the population in
general.
Mike Caro wrote a seven page article called "Seven-Card Stud - A Crash Course."
If you read that article and follow what it says, you can beat any $1-$5
7-Stud game I have ever played in - including the Vegas rock games. Seven
pages of knowledge.
If you add to your knowledge by reading Roy West and applying his information
in general, you can beat any $5-$10 structured 7-Stud game I have ever played
in. I play 12-16 hour sessions and win about 2 big bets per hour. (I would
obviously do better if I had the brains to quit earlier)
I not only read but studied Lou Krieger and Lee Jones, and found I could beat
$1-$4-$8-$8 Hold 'em most of the time. I could not earn as many big bets per
hour as at stud and I had much higher fluctuations. I could not beat structured
HE on anything like a consistent basis.
I'm still learning HE and doing better but it is hard for me to pick up the
skills.
Obviously, I disagee on getting to the "good" level. My experience is that
stud is the easier - assuming a "good" player is defined as one who can
consistently beat $5-$10 stuctured Stud or HE.
However, it is my experience that the move up from $5-$10 Stud is a quantum
leap. The higher relative antes, the higher relative buy-ins, and the better
players make it an entirely different game.
It is my opinion that at these limits, a great player will excel at whichever
game he learns to play. If there is a crossover problem, it is not because of
complexity, but because of relative emphasis of various skills.
An analogy - I suspect there are many baseball players who think Michael Jordan
is overrated as an athlete (although they wouldn't say it out loud) because of
the difficulty he had transitioning from basketball. I think most of you will
agree with me that he is a great athlete. The transition from HE to Stud or
vice versa seems to me to be very similar.
Gary Carson
Andrew Prock wrote in message <82f44o$7...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
>From a "pure" theoretical level, stud is the more complex
>game. There are more rounds, more information in the form
>of known cards, and multiple limits on fourth street when
>there is a pair on the board. The amount of money the pot
>varies with the number of opponents.
>
>All this leads to a relativly easy conclusion that stud is
>more complex in terms of how big the possible state space
>is.
A large state space does not mean a more complex state space. At least not
by any definition of complexity that I can think of.
Gary Carson
Andrew Prock
game. There are more rounds, more information in the form
of known cards, and multiple limits on fourth street when
there is a pair on the board. The amount of money the pot
varies with the number of opponents.
All this leads to a relativly easy conclusion that stud is
more complex in terms of how big the possible state space
is.
On the other hand more complex, doesn't translate into
more difficult. In particular, I think hold'em requires
players to be much better at skills which are more difficult
to master. In particular, memory is more important in
hold'em than stud. In hold'em you depend more on how your
opponent has acted in the past to make informed decisions
about how to play now. In stud, many abiguities are resolved
simply by considering all the information local to a hand.
So, I think stud is more complex in terms of state space,
but hold'em requires more complicated skills.
- Andrew
Andrew Prock
>A large state space does not mean a more complex state space. At least not
>by any definition of complexity that I can think of.
Well then I guess we have a minor disagreement. I was using
the laymans definition of complex:
2 com.plex n \'kam-.pleks\
1 : a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts
Stud has more "interrelated parts", and thus is more complex.
Maybe that's not what Lee was thinking of, but I'm inclined
to believe it was until he says otherwise.
- Andrew
Jonathan Kaplan
this touches on the crux of my thinking on this.
i agree that stud has a larger state space. but that doesnt mean that
stud is more complex or difficult.
poker is about (on one important level), acquiring relevant information
and then using that info correctly. the range of info that is used to
make decisions in stud (generally) is larger (perhaps), but that range
of info is more easily defined, more easily acquired, and furthermore,
usually the readily available info (ie. cards seen) is the most
important info in the decision. HE's range is smaller, but the elements
of decision are less definable, less easily acquired, and less
understandable (or often, even known) as being even a part of the
decision.
the info in HE's state space is much harder to assimilate and, i
think, this makes HE more difficult to get good at and much more
difficult to master.
Jonathan
--
no matter where you go, there you are...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SteadyEd O
it is vital....In Hold Em past memory of how a player plays is more important.
In Stud knowing odds is not a great factor. In Hold Em its essential.. With
more betting rounds in Stud and having to watch the other hands and remember
cards it would appear to be more complex. It does require more concentration.
However Hold Em is a different animal because of the community cards. In Stud
you can make a great hand but easily get beaten by a better hand...ie flush to
a full house. In Hold Em it frequently comes down to Top pair with the best
kicker, and basically reading the other players hand. So Stud needs more
memory and concentration but Hold Em requires more knowledge of math and outs
based on pot size and strong people reading skills. I personally believe Hold
Em is more complex just by its nature.
Money travels from the Impatient to the Patient!
Steady
msdo...@my-deja.com
lifetime to completely master either game, I do have one thing to
correct here:
In article <19991206034309...@ng-bj1.aol.com>,
stea...@aol.com (SteadyEd O) wrote:
> I'd like to add that in Hold Em no memory is needed as to cards
shown. In Stud
> it is vital....In Hold Em past memory of how a player plays is more
important.
> In Stud knowing odds is not a great factor.
Absolutely incorrect. Being able to recalculate the odds at ever
exposed card is crutial do mastery of the game. Knowing how live a
hand is, whether yours or the likely hand of your opponent, makes all
the difference between a fish and a winner. The odds are different in
stud, but one of the most important parts of the game.
>In Hold Em its essential.. With
> more betting rounds in Stud and having to watch the other hands and
remember
> cards it would appear to be more complex. It does require more
concentration.
> However Hold Em is a different animal because of the community cards.
In Stud
> you can make a great hand but easily get beaten by a better hand...ie
flush to
> a full house. In Hold Em it frequently comes down to Top pair with
the best
> kicker, and basically reading the other players hand. So Stud needs
more
> memory and concentration but Hold Em requires more knowledge of math
and outs
> based on pot size and strong people reading skills.
I hate to say this, as I may be totally wrong, but you sound like
someone who's never played any serious stud for serious money against a
tough field. Listen to your statement. You claim that stud requires
more memory of exposed cards, but holdem requires more math. What good
is knowing exposed cards, without being able to apply it accurately and
appropriately to determine odds of correctly reading your opponent,
determining your probability of winning a pot, against implied odds?
To the contrary, in holdem, post flop, there's a limited number of
hands an opponent can have. In stud, at a similar betting round, 5th
street, the possible holdings are much more varied. It may appear that
this skill is more essential in holdem, only because you do have a
community flop to which associate that hand to. But it's probably
tougher, and more critical in stud, since a mistake at 5th street will
cost you more than a similar mistake in holdem.
>I personally believe Hold
> Em is more complex just by its nature.
>
Again, it doesn't really matter much, since most of us will perhaps be
good players with work and study, but few of us will be great players,
regardless of whether we're talking stud or holdem.
> Money travels from the Impatient to the Patient!
My money always seems to go to the mental patient.
>
> Steady
Krmin
>In Stud knowing odds is not a great factor..
I don't think the player needs to know odds in as much detail in stud as in HE.
However, an essential part of any poker game is an understanding of odds. The
perfect example is the third street raise to get heads up. I make a lot of
money at the lower limits by people with straight and flush draws calling me
heads up when I have a big pair. It is a mistake on their part because the
odds are in my favor.
>However Hold Em is a different animal because of the community cards. In Stud
>you can make a great hand but easily get beaten by a better hand...ie flush to
>a full house. In Hold Em it frequently comes down to Top pair with the best
>kicker, and basically reading the other players hand.
This brings up a good point. You often know you have the nuts in HE. You can
almost never be sure you have the nuts in Stud. It makes a difference in that
it is easy to raise with the nuts, but harder to raise when a good player may
be leading you into a trap. The potential trap situation is going to happen
more in Stud
ULMLLC
Both games have their difficulties in different ways from what I've seen. In
stud the pontential of the hands can be concealed very well. (i.e. you can have
quads and/or a full house with no pair on the board. In hold'em it's very clear
what the highest hand is and/or can be with any given board. (i.e. no pair on
board = no full house or quads).
In hold'em i am always worried about my kicker with my pair because the
pair is commonly shared with other players, in stud it's only the size of my
pair or pairs that I am worried about.
I feel information obtained in stud is much more than is given in hold'em
with several cards being displayed on the table for each player. If you have
any ability to count the cards remaining, you can determine if you are in good
position with favorable odds to win the pot.
In hold'em I always think in the concept of "how many outs do I have?" How
many outs do I think he/she has?" It's a little easier for me to figure being a
hold'em player, but a lot of information is gained on previous hands with "what
are their opening requirements" Do they bet draws? do they check raise their
better hands? Do they slowplay monsters?? Take this information and apply it to
the current hand and you can narrow down the hands that they could possibly
have.
I think both games are "easy to play, difficult to master" However from my
personal experience, I've found that the conversion to playing stud while still
being a hold'em player foremost, has been relatively simple. Then again I have
the ability to memorize and keep track of the cards in play and still to come.
Gives me a better advantage in stud against weaker players.
Gregg
Lee Munzer
Andrew Prock ...
> According to Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com>:
>
> >A large state space does not mean a more complex state space. At least
not
> >by any definition of complexity that I can think of.
>
> Well then I guess we have a minor disagreement. I was using
> the laymans definition of complex:
>
> 2 com.plex n \'kam-.pleks\
> 1 : a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts
>
> Stud has more "interrelated parts", and thus is more complex.
> Maybe that's not what Lee was thinking of, but I'm inclined
> to believe it was until he says otherwise.
>
Yes, the layman's definition was what I had in mind. What's 'state space'?
Andrew, in addition, can you expand on interrelated parts?
Thanks,
Lee
John H
wrote:
>In article <82fa7h$b...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
> jeffy...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock) wrote:
>> According to Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com>:
>>
>> >A large state space does not mean a more complex state space. At
>least not
>> >by any definition of complexity that I can think of.
>>
>> Well then I guess we have a minor disagreement. I was using
>> the laymans definition of complex:
>>
>> 2 com.plex n \'kam-.pleks\
>> 1 : a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts
>>
>> Stud has more "interrelated parts", and thus is more complex.
>> Maybe that's not what Lee was thinking of, but I'm inclined
>> to believe it was until he says otherwise.
>>
>
>this touches on the crux of my thinking on this.
>i agree that stud has a larger state space. but that doesnt mean that
>stud is more complex or difficult.
>
>poker is about (on one important level), acquiring relevant information
>and then using that info correctly. the range of info that is used to
>make decisions in stud (generally) is larger (perhaps), but that range
>of info is more easily defined, more easily acquired, and furthermore,
>usually the readily available info (ie. cards seen) is the most
>important info in the decision. HE's range is smaller, but the elements
>of decision are less definable, less easily acquired, and less
>understandable (or often, even known) as being even a part of the
>decision.
>
What the heck is state space?
Also, as to the range of info in stud being more easily defined and
acquired, I respectfully disagree.
You should NEVER be surprised at any hold'em hand that gets turned up,
simply because the entire range of possible hands is visible in front
of you in the community cards. (I mean, you may be surprised when
someone flips 3-6 offsuit to show the gutshot straight that they hit
on the river, but that would be surprise that someone took two cold
raises on that junk, not at the existence of the straight itself.)
Nobody in Hold'em can ever pop an invisible quad or full house on you.
Hand reading is more difficult in stud and more prone to
mis-interpretation in hold'em
John Harkness
>the info in HE's state space is much harder to assimilate and, i
>think, this makes HE more difficult to get good at and much more
>difficult to master.
>
>Jonathan
>
>--
>no matter where you go, there you are...
>
>
Andrew Prock
>
>Andrew Prock ...
>> According to Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com>:
>>
>> >A large state space does not mean a more complex state space. At least
>not
>> >by any definition of complexity that I can think of.
>>
>> Well then I guess we have a minor disagreement. I was using
>> the laymans definition of complex:
>>
>> 2 com.plex n \'kam-.pleks\
>> 1 : a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts
>>
>> Stud has more "interrelated parts", and thus is more complex.
>> Maybe that's not what Lee was thinking of, but I'm inclined
>> to believe it was until he says otherwise.
>>
>
>Yes, the layman's definition was what I had in mind. What's 'state space'?
>
>Andrew, in addition, can you expand on interrelated parts?
Disclaimer: I'm not a stud expert, so if I get anything wrong about
the game, please correct me.
Basically, my first post discussed complexity in two ways. The
first way was how big the state space of the game was. The second
was the skills required for managing the state space.
With respect to poker, when I'm talking about state space, I mean
the total distinct number of possible ways a hand of that game can
wind up being played. This number is a function of the number of
events that can occur during the hand.
I'm going to try and describe the state space for holdem briefly.
Let's assume that all betting is capped at 4 bets.
Each round a player can bet, check, raise, or fold, the greatest number of
times a player can act is 5 if betting is always capped - the player checks
and gets whipsawed for four more bets. We can compile a table of these
actions, with five slots for every round. For excample, in hold'em we
might have:
rc... kcccc krr.. b....
Where k = check, b = bet, c = call, r = raise, f = fold. The
player above raised the flop and called a reraise. On the turn the
player checked and was whipsawed for four more bets. On the turn,
he check-raised, and then reraised. On the river he only bet a single
time.
This formulation expresses ALL of the game information that is associated
with a single player *within* the round. In stud there is not only an
extra round, but there is also around where the limits are variable.
On fourth street when there is an open pair you can bet a small bet or a
big bet. So we might get a description of play that looks like this:
c.... Br... b.... b.... bf...
where B = big bet on fourth street.
Clearly there is a wider variety of ways that a hand can be played
by a particular player in stud than in hold'em. If we ignored 4th
street in stud the games would have the same number of possible
ways to play a hand. Fourth street give players more options in
terms of how they play their hands.
This is one aspect to the state space of each game. In addition to
the betting history of each player, the card information is also
a factor.
In hold'em there can be up to 5 upcards. In stud there can be up
to 33 upcards. This makes a big difference how large the state
space is. Consider heads up play for instance. In hold'em, on the
flop there are 47 different cards which can affect how you'll play
the hand. In stud, on fourth street there are 28*27 ways the next
two upcards can be dealt making 756 different possible situations.
Most of the time, most upcards will not have been seen, and we can
assign them the state "not seen".
Essentially, the player actions and the upcards define almost all
of the game state of a single hand of structure limit poker.
Other factors include blinds/antes. But these apply equally
to both games, so let's just ignore them for now.
Let's count the number of state variables so we can make sure
we have some idea of how much state each game has. Since most
of the time you'll see at most more like 20 upcards in
stud let's use that number
Stud (8 players)
8(players)*5(possible actions/round)*5(rounds)*20(upcards) = 4000 variables
Hold'em (10 players)
8(players)*5(possible actions/round)*4(rounds)*5(upcards) = 1000 variables
So in terms of raw numbers of variables, there are four times
as many variables in stud than hold'em.
One problem with trying to quantify state is that most state
variables are not independent of others. What I mean is that
some of the possible states are not valid. For example, the
betting state in hold'em:
rc... kcccc krr.. b...
is not valid if everyone folds on the flop. Likewise, in stud,
you are not going to have seen an 18th upcard if you haven't
seen the 12th upcard. Nevertheless, the state space for
stud is clearly much larger than in hold'em simply in terms
of the number of variables.
I hope this hasn't been a total mishmash to anyone whose
gotten this far.
:)
- Andrew
Andrew Prock
>>and then using that info correctly. the range of info that is used to
>>make decisions in stud (generally) is larger (perhaps), but that range
>>of info is more easily defined, more easily acquired, and furthermore,
>>usually the readily available info (ie. cards seen) is the most
>>important info in the decision. HE's range is smaller, but the elements
>>of decision are less definable, less easily acquired, and less
>>understandable (or often, even known) as being even a part of the
>>decision.
>
>simply because the entire range of possible hands is visible in front
>of you in the community cards. (I mean, you may be surprised when
>someone flips 3-6 offsuit to show the gutshot straight that they hit
>on the river, but that would be surprise that someone took two cold
>raises on that junk, not at the existence of the straight itself.)
>
>Nobody in Hold'em can ever pop an invisible quad or full house on you.
>Hand reading is more difficult in stud and more prone to
>mis-interpretation in hold'em
>
>John Harkness
I have to tend to agree with John here. I am *not* a stud player,
but if I were, I'd have to be expending a lot more mental resources to
play as close to optimal as I do in hold'em.
In hold'em I know how many outs I have, the number of unseen cards
is relativly stable, and the range of opponents hands is much smaller.
If I have a 4 nut flush, I know that there are 9 cards in the 47 unseen
cards which can make my flush. I know that I'm about 2:1 to make my
hand and a bit worse to actually win the hand when there is no board
pair on the flop.
In stud, not only do the unseen cards vary but so do the number of
outs. I might have 0-9 unseen flush cards left on 5th street,
with 26-38 unseen cards overall. I can read my opponents board, but
at the river, I'm not going to know I have the nuts when his board
is unpaired.
That said, it may very well be the case that the opposition in stud
plays so much further from optimal than the opposition in hold'em
that I just don't have to worry about all those details all the time.
- Andrew
Andrew Prock
>Well then I guess we have a minor disagreement. I was using
>the laymans definition of complex:
>
> 2 com.plex n \'kam-.pleks\
> 1 : a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of you
who didn't flame me for posting the definition of the
NOUN complex instead of the ADJECTIVE.
- Andrew
Iceman
Omaha might have the most possibilities of all, but it's strategy is
much simpler than holdem or stud. Similarly, stud H/L has a simpler
strategy than high-only stud, despite it's larger number of possible
outcomes.
Expert holdem play requires accurate reading of hands and opponents,
knowledge of odds, and situational strategies.
Expert stud play requires all of that, plus taking into account the
upcards, the ante structure, and extra outs. Rather than the number of
mathematically possible outcomes, the number of different types of
situations in stud is greater than in any other game. Hand reading is
more difficult in stud, since you have to consider folded cards. Minor
changes in these factors can significantly alter the strategy. Stud is
clearly the more complex game.
Because of the greater complexity of stud, a stud expert has a larger
advantage over good stud players than a holdem expert has over good
holdem players. Holdem being a community card game, the best hand
typically has a very large advantage. This makes holdem more profitable
against idiots, but against good players, there is less opportunity for
an expert to use skill.
Iceman
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
JS
learn Stud before moving to flop game? Is it totally useless and should
beginners jump right into Holdem?
My own opinion is that my Stud experience ;-) is helping my beginner Holdem
game.
To me, both games can be boiled down to this: What could that person have to
have taken that action? What are my odds for making my hand? What is/will
be in the pot? It's the same information, just presented in a different
way. Stud may be more complex to begin with, but if I organize my thoughts
into those three categories, I find it easier to act.
What say all of you?
Cheers,
Steve "Former Stud Bigot" Tyler - I've changed my return address and screen
name to reflect my poker room "nickname"- Jack Six.
Andrew Prock wrote in message <82h36d$1...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
Andrew Prock
[snip]
>Stud (8 players)
>
>8(players)*5(possible actions/round)*5(rounds)*20(upcards) = 4000 variables
>
>Hold'em (10 players)
>
>8(players)*5(possible actions/round)*4(rounds)*5(upcards) = 1000 variables
[snip]
>I hope this hasn't been a total mishmash to anyone whose
>gotten this far.
Oops I failed I guess. The above computation is totally wrong.
The last multiply should be an addition to make it correct.
So the "real" answer is:
stud has 220 variables
holdem has 205 variables
Sorry about the error.
While I realize that these numbers don't seem that different, it
is important to note that the total state is exponential in the
number of variables.
- Andrew
Andrew Prock
>The state space doesn't determine the actual complexity of a game.
I guess that depends on what you mean by complexity. But I do
agree with you in a lot of ways.
>Omaha might have the most possibilities of all, but it's strategy is
>much simpler than holdem or stud. Similarly, stud H/L has a simpler
>strategy than high-only stud, despite it's larger number of possible
>outcomes.
I think that there is a difference between the basic strategy and
the optimal strategy. I think I could argue that the playing the
best possible omaha is harder than playing the best possible hold'em.
>Expert stud play requires all of that, plus taking into account the
>upcards, the ante structure, and extra outs. Rather than the number of
>mathematically possible outcomes, the number of different types of
>situations in stud is greater than in any other game. Hand reading is
>more difficult in stud, since you have to consider folded cards. Minor
>changes in these factors can significantly alter the strategy. Stud is
>clearly the more complex game.
Aren't you making the argument that the larger state space of stud makes
it more difficult?
- Andrew
Iceman
> is
> >much simpler than holdem or stud. Similarly, stud H/L has a
> simpler
> >strategy than high-only stud, despite it's larger number of
> possible
> >outcomes.
> I think that there is a difference between the basic strategy and
> the optimal strategy. I think I could argue that the playing the
> best possible omaha is harder than playing the best possible
> hold'em.
Creating a game theoretic model to completely solve heads-up play would
be more difficult in Omaha than in holdem (although practically
impossible in both). But expert level play against real opponents is
much more complex in holdem.
> >Expert stud play requires all of that, plus taking into account
> the
> >upcards, the ante structure, and extra outs. Rather than the
> number of
> >mathematically possible outcomes, the number of different types of
> >situations in stud is greater than in any other game. Hand
> reading is
> >more difficult in stud, since you have to consider folded cards.
> Minor
> >changes in these factors can significantly alter the strategy.
> Stud is
> >clearly the more complex game.
> Aren't you making the argument that the larger state space of stud
> makes
> it more difficult?
Those mathematical possibilities can be categorized into the number of
actual differences that matter. There are a lot of Omaha-8 starting
hands, but there are very few things that you actually have to consider
when making decisions. And there are many possible Omaha-8 situations,
but a small number of strategies cover them all. In stud, there are
fewer possible starting hands, but every little detail matters -
2-flushes, etc. And it takes a much broader range of strategies to
address the situations that occur in stud, even if the mathematical
number of overall possibilities is lower than in another game.
Andrew Prock
>
>Those mathematical possibilities can be categorized into the number of
>actual differences that matter. There are a lot of Omaha-8 starting
>hands, but there are very few things that you actually have to consider
>when making decisions. And there are many possible Omaha-8 situations,
>but a small number of strategies cover them all. In stud, there are
>fewer possible starting hands, but every little detail matters -
>2-flushes, etc. And it takes a much broader range of strategies to
>address the situations that occur in stud, even if the mathematical
>number of overall possibilities is lower than in another game.
Yes,
This is exactly true. One of things that makes Omaha8 play
very different, and easier, is that whole realms of the
state space are irrelevant and don't need to be considered
under normal full-table play.
I guess the real question is: what make a game difficult.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your alusion to
"actual differences" above. In particualar, one my postulate
that the more evenly spread the state space is over all hands,
both internally during the hand, and externally over all hands,
the more difficult the game.
If this were true, then this would point to stud being the
hardest of the games.
- Andrew
Gary Carson
Andrew Prock wrote in message <82hbfg$6...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
>According to Iceman <drubenst...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
>>The state space doesn't determine the actual complexity of a game.
>
>I guess that depends on what you mean by complexity. But I do
>agree with you in a lot of ways.
No, I don't think it really depends much on what you mean by complexity.
The state space is the collection of all possible hand histories.
Everything that could have happened to bring you to the point you're at now.
The decision space is the collection of all the actions you can take right
now -- fold, raise, call, etc. Which decision you should choose depends on
the current state -- on what's happend up to now. That includes everybody's
actions up to now, all the cards that have been seen up to now, etc.
There is some mapping between the state space and the decision space that
suggests an optimal decision for a given state. The complexity of the game
refers to that mapping. It has nothing to do with the size of the state
space or the size of the decison space. It's possible to have a very large
state space but a very simple set of rules that map the state to a decision.
Gary Carson
Heldar
hold'em. But that doesn't necessarily make stud more complex TO PLAY than
hold'em, because many of those extra possibilities may not be important.
It's sort of like in chess, where there are 20 possible opening moves, but
only about 7 that any decent player ever makes.
Personally, I think stud IS harder to play well than hold'em, but that's
because stud requires you to remember a bunch of folded cards, while in
hold'em you remain blissfully ignorant of what your opponents have mucked;
you don't have that info, so you aren't expected to make use of it.
Asha34
Others:
Which is more difficult to learn Chinese or Greek?
(Assuming you are neither).
Which is a harder instrument to learn, trumpet or tuba?
Which food tastes better, Spanish or French.
It all depends on what you are familiar with, the way your brain works, the
type of Stud or HE game you are talking about, and how eager you are to learn.
I grew up playing Stud. HE is more difficult for me. But take someone who was
brought up on a steady diet of flops and turns and he'll tell you Stud is more
complicated.
A better question, I think, is what are the transferable skills from one game
to the other. I always get the sense that the good HE players will always be
better than I because they started playing before I did and I'll never catch
up.
Now if I could just get the game I invented to catch on -- then I'd have the
edge.
Ashley
SteadyEd O
>> I'd like to add that in Hold Em no memory is needed as to cards
>shown. In Stud
>> it is vital....In Hold Em past memory of how a player plays is more
>important.
>> In Stud knowing odds is not a great factor.
>
>Absolutely incorrect. Being able to recalculate the odds at ever
>exposed card is crutial do mastery of the game. Knowing how live a
>hand is, whether yours or the likely hand of your opponent, makes all
>the difference between a fish and a winner. The odds are different in
>stud, but one of the most important parts of the game.
I might be incorrect but isn't it enough to know that there are lets say 2
Jacks left if you need one. Or that there is only one 5 left if your opponent
needs that card? Once you know what cards are live and which ones are not, you
can play accordingly. In Hold Em its vital to be able to figure outs then
calculate the odds and compare them to the pot...including implied odds...
Steady
Andrew Prock
>Andrew, you have demonstrated that 7-stud has more possibilities than
>hold'em. But that doesn't necessarily make stud more complex TO PLAY than
>hold'em, because many of those extra possibilities may not be important.
That's what I said in my original post. I was just answering
Lee's question.
- Andrew
Jonathan Kaplan
jeffy...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock) wrote:
>
> ...Let's count the number of state variables so we can make sure
> we have some idea of how much state each game has. Since most
> of the time you'll see at most more like 20 upcards in
> stud let's use that number
>
> Stud (8 players)
>
> 8(players)*5(possible actions/round)*5(rounds)*20(upcards) = 4000
variables
>
> Hold'em (10 players)
>
> 8(players)*5(possible actions/round)*4(rounds)*5(upcards) = 1000
variables
>
> So in terms of raw numbers of variables, there are four times
> as many variables in stud than hold'em....
>
> I hope this hasn't been a total mishmash to anyone whose
> gotten this far....
let me just say that this thread is wearing down my resolve to argue
the holdem side, you guys are "convincing" me, particularly with all
this math "mumbo-jumbo".
grin
having said that, and given that perhaps i dont understand this state
space "stuff", it appears to me that you are arguing the concept that
more upcards makes the game more complex, decision-wise. you are using
the idea that more variables to factor in to a decision make the game
more complex? just intuitively, this cant be right. more upcards, more
"visible" information makes the game EASIER. maybe it makes it more
difficult for a beginner, someone not good enough to factor the info
correctly, but for good/great players, the more upcards, the easier the
decision. is this wrong?
like i said, you are wearing me down though, starting to believe you
stud people in this thread. however, i still cling to the idea that, of
the total mass of info used in decisionmaking in these two games, a
much larger percentage of the stud info is visible and knowable, and
often, the visible info is the most important. a larger percentage of
the info in holdem is not visible, not as easily discerned, and often,
the invisible info is the most important. is this wrong?
i am very much appreciating this thought provoking enlightenment.
thanks....grin
Krmin
>From: stea...@aol.com (SteadyEd O)
>Date: Mon, 06 December 1999 09:37 PM EST
>Message-id: <19991206213746...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
Three opponents. I put one on a straight draw, one on a pair of Jacks, and the
third on a diamond flush draw.
I need to know how many "outs" I have in spades, how many Kings are available,
what my odds are of pairing up, how live the straight draw is, the chances of
Jacks triping or making two pairs, and how many diamonds are out. I add this
together to determine the odds of winning the pot, then compare that number ot
implied/pot odds to decide what to do.
This is a common situation in stud.
HE. I have KcKs in my hand. Flop and turn is Qh Js 8s 3s. Three opponents.
It appears that from an odds viewpoint, this is much simpler. You only have to
look at the board and figure what can beat you or help you and go from that.
You don't have to add cards that have been played.
You can make "rule of thumb" plays at this point, just like you can do in HE,
but done completely, I think the stud side is much more complicated.
Abdul Jalib
length of the corresponding 2+2 book (minus the filler material.)
"JS" <jacks...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I have a somewhat related question. How many of you think it is wiser to
> learn Stud before moving to flop game? Is it totally useless and should
> beginners jump right into Holdem?
The reason that some high stakes pros have concluded that 7-stud is
harmful to your poker health is that they see successful high stakes
7-stud pros who play a horrible game of hold'em and omaha and never
seem to improve at flop games.
--
Abdul
Greg Gensicki
>discussing, what do you think?
>
I think this question will be resolved just after this group comes to a general
smoking consensus.
Eliminate nojunk from email to reply
Iceman
> state
> space "stuff", it appears to me that you are arguing the concept
> that
> more upcards makes the game more complex, decision-wise. you are
> using
> the idea that more variables to factor in to a decision make the
> game
> more complex? just intuitively, this cant be right. more upcards,
> more
> "visible" information makes the game EASIER. maybe it makes it more
> difficult for a beginner, someone not good enough to factor the
> info
> correctly, but for good/great players, the more upcards, the
> easier the
> decision. is this wrong?
Let's play a game. I deal you one card down, and deal myself one card
down. There is one betting round, and the higher card wins. Since
there's no visible information at all, does that make this the most
complex game?
Jerrod Ankenman
: >Allowing that your opinion may vary depending upon what limits we are
: >discussing, what do you think?
: >
: I think this question will be resolved just after this group comes to a general
: smoking consensus.
At least this has to do with poker.
My .02: I think that stud has more pure game-theory-relevant strategy to
it; more decisions, more information available, etc. OTOH, I think that
holdem has more deception, psychology, and those kinds of things.
Holdem's decisions are often harder to quantify. More complex? Hard to say.
Jerrod "i've been lately a stud player" Ankenman
jer...@crl.com
SteadyEd O
out. But that doesn't mean its a more complex game to play than Hold Em... On
second thought I will stick to Hold Em!!!
Jonathan Kaplan
Iceman <drubenst...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > having said that, and given that perhaps i dont understand this
> > state
> > space "stuff", it appears to me that you are arguing the concept
> > that
> > more upcards makes the game more complex, decision-wise. you are
> > using
> > the idea that more variables to factor in to a decision make the
> > game
> > more complex? just intuitively, this cant be right. more upcards,
> > more
> > "visible" information makes the game EASIER. maybe it makes it more
> > difficult for a beginner, someone not good enough to factor the
> > info
> > correctly, but for good/great players, the more upcards, the
> > easier the
> > decision. is this wrong?
>
> Let's play a game. I deal you one card down, and deal myself one card
> down. There is one betting round, and the higher card wins. Since
> there's no visible information at all, does that make this the most
> complex game?
>
Ice, i'll play that game if you play mine. we each get one card down,
then 24 upcards each. one betting round, at the end. same stakes. but
we have to play both games alot so i can "learn" how you play. that is
part of the "invisible" info of holdem i refer to.
neither of these examples prove much of anything, i think.
why is 5 card stud pretty much dead? i think it is (at least partly)
because too much of the info used in the decisions is open,
particularly when the last card is up. 7 card stud doesnt have "too
much" info open (obviously), but hard (for me) to believe this effect
can be completely negated.
Krmin
>>
>I think this question will be resolved just after this group comes to a
>general
>smoking consensus.
>
interesting. You don't have to resolve a question like this in order to learn
from it. I would like to see more of this type of thread.
Jonathan Kaplan
kr...@aol.com (Krmin) wrote:
> Stud. I'm on sixth street with a pair of Kings and a four card spade
flush.
> Three opponents. I put one on a straight draw, one on a pair of
Jacks, and the
> third on a diamond flush draw.
>
> I need to know how many "outs" I have in spades, how many Kings are
available,
> what my odds are of pairing up, how live the straight draw is, the
chances of
> Jacks triping or making two pairs, and how many diamonds are out. I
add this
> together to determine the odds of winning the pot, then compare that
number ot
> implied/pot odds to decide what to do.
>
> This is a common situation in stud.
yep. right on so far.
>
> HE. I have KcKs in my hand. Flop and turn is Qh Js 8s 3s. Three
opponents.
> It appears that from an odds viewpoint, this is much simpler. You
only have to
> look at the board and figure what can beat you or help you and go
from that.
> You don't have to add cards that have been played.
hey, according to this, HE looks simpler.
but wait, you forgot other parts of the HE decision. you forgot to
factor in the history and personality of the players, their history
with you, their history with other players at the table, what they have
done today, what they have done in the last round/hand, how
friendly/antagonistic they are to you (and others in the hand), how
much money they have in front of them (if bankroll affects the way they
think), whether or not they have just eaten, on and on and on.
now, if you are inclined to opine that all of these considerations also
apply in stud, i will agree with that. the problem is that they apply
much more importantly in HE, BECAUSE the odds (and other apparent info)
is more simple. in stud, by the time you hit 6th street, the
visible/easily known info is most important and will outweigh most
every element of the "less tangible" information i am describing. the
turn in holdem is relatively simple (according to the numbers and
visible info ONLY), SO the less tangible information can make ALL the
difference, making any one of the decision choices available possibly
the best choice, regardless of the numbers. in stud, if you can crunch
all the visible info correctly, you can rely (rather safely) on the
decision that is implied by your number crunching.
in HE, you cant.
and that is why HE is more complex, and more difficult to play
well/great. (remember i am only talking about "good to great" play in
these two games. for a beginner, stud is both more complex and more
difficult. i think.)
Jonathan
(who was starting to believe the stud argument in this thread, but now
i feel reinvigorated in my "defense" of holdem.....big grin)
SteadyEd O
>The thread is about poker, nobody is acting like an ass, and many of us find
>it
>interesting. You don't have to resolve a question like this in order to
>learn
>from it. I would like to see more of this type of thread.
>
>
Yeah!
Complex, Websters new Dictionary...... Meaning....Of Various Parts.
So which one really is more complex than the other.... They both use 7 cards,
one has an extra betting round, and the other relies heavily on the 2 hole
cards, while still being able to read the board accurately. The other has 3
hole cards with the first 2 being very important, and requires board reading of
many hands... So maybe Stud is more complex because of the extra betting round
and having to read more hands, ie... having more parts...Dam I was hoping hold
Em would win!
Money travels from the Impatient to the Patient!
Steady
John Moser
gone a little wild. I don't know, but in this case the state discussion seems
to take two very complex games and reduce them to several hundred factors.
Maybe,stud and hold-em shouldn't be compared merely statistically but on others
levels as well?
Andrew Prock wrote:
> According to Lee Munzer <luck...@xts.net>:
> >
> >Andrew Prock ...
> >> According to Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com>:
> >>
> >> >A large state space does not mean a more complex state space. At least
> >not
> >> >by any definition of complexity that I can think of.
> >>
> >> Well then I guess we have a minor disagreement. I was using
> >> the laymans definition of complex:
> >>
> >> 2 com.plex n \'kam-.pleks\
> >> 1 : a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts
> >>
> Let's count the number of state variables so we can make sure
> we have some idea of how much state each game has. Since most
> of the time you'll see at most more like 20 upcards in
> stud let's use that number
>
> Stud (8 players)
>
> 8(players)*5(possible actions/round)*5(rounds)*20(upcards) = 4000 variables
>
> Hold'em (10 players)
>
> 8(players)*5(possible actions/round)*4(rounds)*5(upcards) = 1000 variables
>
> So in terms of raw numbers of variables, there are four times
> as many variables in stud than hold'em.
>
> One problem with trying to quantify state is that most state
> variables are not independent of others. What I mean is that
> some of the possible states are not valid. For example, the
> betting state in hold'em:
>
> rc... kcccc krr.. b...
>
> is not valid if everyone folds on the flop. Likewise, in stud,
> you are not going to have seen an 18th upcard if you haven't
> seen the 12th upcard. Nevertheless, the state space for
> stud is clearly much larger than in hold'em simply in terms
> of the number of variables.
>
> I hope this hasn't been a total mishmash to anyone whose
> gotten this far.
>
> :)
>
> - Andrew
Krmin
not "complex." Complex, to me, means: How many variables would a "perfect"
player consider to play a "perfect" game against another "perfect" player. The
game with the most variables is the most complex.
In this scenario, the only real difference between HE and Stud are the cards
folded. The "perfect" stud player makes the same considerations he would make
in HE, then he considers the effect of folded cards. This additional variable
makes Stud the more complex game.
Since the "perfect" player doesn't exist, the relative difficulty of the two
games is determined by the strengths people bring to the games. If the
strengths in the general playing population apply best to the stud game, then
it is the least difficult and vice versa.
Iceman
> card
> > down. There is one betting round, and the higher card wins. Since
> > there's no visible information at all, does that make this the
> most
> > complex game?
> why is 5 card stud pretty much dead? i think it is (at least
> partly)
> because too much of the info used in the decisions is open,
Bad players have no chance in 5-stud, and the game doesn't have enough
action to interest them. Also the game has a very limited strategy, so
unless your opponents are idiots no one has any real advantage.
In my one-card game, there is no visible info. We could play this
repeatedly, and if we're both good players, we'd converge to a game
theoretic equilibrium. It wouldn't take long for us to come close to
that. If I had the queen of diamonds, I'd bet. I'd probably check the
six of clubs in the hope that you'd check back a weaker hand and I'd
win the antes. I might bluff with the two of spades or go for the
check-raise with the ace of hearts.
Now take that one-card game, and add six more cards, upcards, an ante
structure that forces a winning player to often play and often raise
with inferior hands, bad, mediocre, rock, maniac, good, and expert
opponents each with their own styles, hands who's value greatly depends
on which cards are out or on whether the hand is heads-up or multiway,
extra outs like 2-flushes or overcards that entirely change your
strategy, and also general poker elements like bluffing, semi-bluffing,
check-raising, etc. as well as hand reading that requires that you take
folded cards into account. And you have to consider your opponents -
how often does he steal, does she tend to have what she represents,
could he make that reraise without a hand, does she automatically bet
in this spot or fold in that one, what mistakes does he make and how
can I take advantage of them?
Partially because stud gives you more information than holdem, it gives
the expert a greater advantage against decent opponents. Only the best
players can accurately adjust to the complexities of the game. There is
less to consider in holdem. Opponent reading is a more significant
component of winning play in holdem than in stud, but it is still very
important in stud play.
While 7-stud is a game of partial information, there's still a lot you
don't have and have to figure out. The structure of the game leaves a
lot of options for what someone could have in most situations, and this
is where knowledge of the opponent is key.
Now take a game like lowball. The blinds are 10-20, and everyone has
about 1000 in front of them. You open for 75 UTG (with a
medium-strength pat hand). I call on the button (with a draw to a
stronger hand), everyone else folds. You stand pat, I draw one. You
check and I bet 200. How do you decide whether to call?
Your decision on whether to call would depend almost solely on your
perception of the way I play rather than on strategic factors or
visible information.
You have very little information here. But yet lowball is a much less
complex game than holdem or stud. There are many fewer factors to
account for. Would you consider lowball more complex since there's
hardly any visible info and virtually the only thing that matters is
your opponent?
John H
wrote:
>hey, according to this, HE looks simpler.
>but wait, you forgot other parts of the HE decision. you forgot to
>factor in the history and personality of the players, their history
>with you, their history with other players at the table, what they have
>done today, what they have done in the last round/hand, how
>friendly/antagonistic they are to you (and others in the hand), how
>much money they have in front of them (if bankroll affects the way they
>think), whether or not they have just eaten, on and on and on.
>
But you also are in a situation where you KNOW the best possible hand
he could have, the best possible hand he could be drawing to. You know
it with absolute certainty. Whatever your opponent's two down cards
are, the board cards define the available hands. This is not nearly as
true in stud, where an apparent flush can be quads or a full house.
John Harkness
Andrew Prock
>
>Yeah!
>
> Complex, Websters new Dictionary...... Meaning....Of Various Parts.
>
>So which one really is more complex than the other.... They both use 7 cards,
>one has an extra betting round, and the other relies heavily on the 2 hole
>cards, while still being able to read the board accurately. The other has 3
>hole cards with the first 2 being very important, and requires board reading of
>many hands... So maybe Stud is more complex because of the extra betting round
>and having to read more hands, ie... having more parts...Dam I was hoping hold
>Em would win!
>
>Money travels from the Impatient to the Patient!
You say it so much more clearly and succintly than I ever could.
Thanks SteadyEd.
Maybe I should take up stud now?
- Andrew
Krmin
>
>in stud, if you can crunch
>all the visible info correctly, you can rely (rather safely) on the
>decision that is implied by your number crunching.
>in HE, you cant.
>and that is why HE is more complex, and more difficult to play
>well/great. (remember i am only talking about "good to great" play in
>these two games. for a beginner, stud is both more complex and more
>difficult. i think.)
>
higher limits. To beat the higher limits you MUST be able to read the other
players. With three hidden cards, good players can get extremely creative.
The classic example is a hidden full house in stud. A player can be playing
two pair, fill on the river, and you have no way of knowing he has power except
by using the same skills you mentioned above. Without those HE skills, you
rarely have a way of knowing that any opponent who bets on the end does not
have a full house.
Frankly, I consider myself pretty much a low to middle limit stud player
because I have not been able to develop those skills adequately to regularly
dive into the really big stud games. The skills you say are not needed at stud
are the ones that are holding me back at stud.
Bill Ingram
> but wait, you forgot other parts of the HE decision. you forgot to
> factor in the history and personality of the players ... and on and on.
> in stud, by the time you hit 6th street, the
> visible/easily known info is most important and will outweigh most
> every element of the "less tangible" information i am describing.
That's, perhaps, the bottom line that this discussion is looking
for. Stud is certainly a more complex game in terms of game
mechanics, but HE has a more complex "big picture", since a
player will need to factor in everything else in the world
as well as the cards themselves.
Perhaps the concept of complexity should be expressed in terms
of which and how much information must be processed for each
decision a player must make. In stud, there is plenty of card
information to be analyzed (up cards and mucked cards). In HE,
that kind of information is scant and the "intangible" information
must be used almost exclusively. People who can read other players
easily will think HE is relatively easy. Players who can analyze
card combos instantly will think Stud is easier.
-- Bill
Sandra Stine
Bill Ingram wrote:
DIE THREAD DIE KILL KILL KILL
Jonathan Kaplan
confused about the difference between "complex" and "difficult".
although i think that HE is more of both than stud, i think that is
more a function of my skills (or lack thereof) and the way i play
holdem (and stud). i see more in holdem cause...well...i'll let that
go.
i will concede that stud is more complex, by the way we are using the
word.
but i still feel quite strongly that HE is more difficult to become
good at, and more difficult to become great, (even conceding that the
word "difficult" is relativistic.)
and no amount of debate will convince me otherwise.
maybe.
smile
Jonathan
SteadyEd O
I just got finished playing No limit hold Em. That is a tough game with many
complexities. Because of the nature of betting there are many traps and one
must proceed with caution least you lose all your money...Very complex, at
least trying to figure out how much to bet when to check raise and when to go
all in..
Gary Carson
> I just got finished playing No limit hold Em. That is a tough game with
many
>complexities. Because of the nature of betting there are many traps and one
>must proceed with caution least you lose all your money...Very complex, at
>least trying to figure out how much to bet when to check raise and when to
go
>all in..
I've played no limit hold'em. I"ve also played pot limit high chicago.
Which is the more complex game? This is a very important question and I
don't think I'll be able to play poker again until it's resolved.
Gary Carson
Jim Geary
I take it in the latter you just sit on your hands until you
are dealt the ace of spades in your opening cards. Seems
pretty simple to me.
Jim Geary
jaygee at primenet dot com
http://www.primenet.com/~jaygee