What's the best variation of online poker to play for a living?

Flipper

This is out of curiosity but what do people think is the best variation of poker to play for a living? By "living" I obviously mean a good, solid means of income.

NLH? PLO? Limit Holdem? Stud? STT's? MTT's?

Give your arguments....

gerry87

I'd guess it changes as people realise which game is most profitable, better players start playing, it becomes less profitable. metagame and all that.

cardshark202

Whatever you are best at. Wherever your win rate is best.

BigCityBanker

whichever one your best at.

Oamaha i reckon.

Fremen

Not sure about playing for a living, but penny PLO is far more profitable than penny Hold 'em.

Flipper

Ok, I didn't want answers like "whatever you're best at". I suppose I mean; which one would offer a player who was equally decent in all varieties of poker the best hourly rate? More importantly, which would maintain the greatest consistency with regard to his/her hourly rate?

phantom_lord

nlhe has the greatest liquidity, has much lower variance than Omaha, and is a faster game in terms of hph. so I guess that makes the most sense to play. although, I've heard people saying that expected wr's are higher for Omaha.

you could play limit and live off rb but I'd imagine that'd be a pretty horrible experience.

Lafortezza

I'd say PLO, if you're very good at PLO at the higher stakes 10/20PLO or higher I'd say your earning potential is higher than for similar limits at NLHE. Only from reading 2+2 really though.
Swings prob savage obv.

Chucky the tree

As a mirco limit player from the few times i have played omaha it seems so much more profitable.

Flipper

phantom_lord wrote:

you could play limit and live off rb but I'd imagine that'd be a pretty horrible experience.

That's what I thought but personally, I'd rather work in McDonalds

robinlacey

i disagree with people saying whatever you're best at-there was a time when i was better at mtts than cash,but i still was better off playing cash,and once i got to the point where i was better at cash than mtts i was even more definitely better off!

phantom_lord

Flipper wrote:

That's what I thought but personally, I'd rather work in McDonalds

lol, yeah, far more job satisfaction to be had in McDonald's I'd say.

robinlacey wrote:

i disagree with people saying whatever you're best at-there was a time when i was better at mtts than cash,but i still was better off playing cash,and once i got to the point where i was better at cash than mtts i was even more definitely better off!

yeah, it should just be whatever your hourly winrate is highest for, and then whichever is lower varience if you make the same in different games.

careca

Depending on the stakes you play, you also need to consider the opposition at that level.

EG, if you play 2/4 plo you will find an awful lot of players who have no clue of the game, whereas if you player higher like 5/10, 10/20 plo you will be playing against a select group of very good players.

I'm not sure what level of holdem you have to play at to still ensure there are some fish involved, but I would imagine even at the higher stakes you will find some clueless players.

Not sure if any of that makes sense (its early)

luckylucky

careca wrote:

Depending on the stakes you play, you also need to consider the opposition at that level. EG, if you play 2/4 plo you will find an awful lot of players who have no clue of the game,
)

Very true, 2/4 plo is more profitable than 2/4 nl imo, i.e. if your skill level is about the same in each one.

careca wrote:

whereas if you player higher like 5/10, 10/20 plo you will be playing against a select group of very good players.

I also think there's possibly a bigger jump from 2/4 plo to 5/10 plo than from 2/4 to 5/10 in hold'em, curiously enough though I think the 10/20 plo can attract some crazies so if I had the roll for a 10/20 I'd probably play plo rather than nl, the only trouble is that there's less 10/20 plo games running.

I've actually found fixed limit to be quite profitable, perhaps even more than other ring games but I could do with building up more hours to be more sure of this.

I think if you are equally skilled in all games, cash games > sngs>mtts.
When it comes to which cash game - personally I don't have any one major preference, it depends on the level, which site etc.

Bandana boy

I think by its nature of very high variance (i dropped 5 BI's at 2-4 in 30 mins without making a single mistake and without recieving what you would describe as a bad beat last week ) and the low volume of tables to choose from you would have to discount PLO and Plump for NLHE
Especially if your able to Multi table 4+ tables

CaptainNemo

$1-$2 and $3-$6 Limit Pineapple. Just play tight. It's been a while since I played but in my experience people play it very like they would limit Hold'Em whereas the showdown hand strengths are closer to what you might see in Omaha. The play can be a bit mechanical and boring but there are some interesting decisions to be made, e.g. hang onto TPTK or 2 pair, or throw it away and draw to the nut flush against 3 other people. Of all the games I've played so far this has been the one that most people have played the worst.

CelticPhantom

gerry87 wrote:

I'd guess it changes as people realise which game is most profitable, better players start playing, it becomes less profitable. metagame and all that.

With the recent boom in poker everyone plays Hold'Em and now maybe 75% are playing Omaha too. Some pros are looking to exploit an edge in games where people are not very experienced and so are looking to other games - Triple Draw, Razz, Lowball, Badugi, etc.

If you can figure out the technicalities of these games pretty quickly then your overall experience should definitely give you a good edge on most of the players playing the less well known games.

Also makes it easier to win a bracelet at the WSOP - how many people entered for the Kansas Lowball event this year?

Bandana boy

I would much rather play 20 good players amongst a field of 200 than 20 good players in a field of 20 players

sitout

micro stake potlimit omaha(multitabling). is a sure fire way to built a BR, it obviously takes heaps of concentration and paticence not to mention the ability to resist temptation to jump up to the higher levels. If you have these atributes (i dont) then, it is the "softest" way to play and consistently earn a "wage" on line . i have often turned $50 into $700/$900 in a week only to donk it all away in ten minutes at the higher tables!

siobhan

luckylucky

CelticPhantom wrote:

Some pros are looking to exploit an edge in games where people are not very experienced and so are looking to other games - Triple Draw, Razz, Lowball, Badugi, etc.

The big problem with all the poker variations above and I'd include Stud in this too, is that as far as I'm aware at any sort of high stakes, i.e. about the equivalent of 5-10 nl, you'd be struggling to find a game online and as far as your chances of multi-tabling go, I'd imagine absolutely none. tbh I think you'd find it difficult to be able to multi-table even at lot lower stakes in these poker variations.

hotspur

Actually multitabling the stud games isn't as tricky as it may appear, it requires being alert but I wouldn't go for more than 3 tables. I've multitabled HORSE too, but in truth you cannot make a good living from any game other than hold em & omaha online unless you are one of the top players out there in another game. HORSE looked promising when it was introduced but it died fairly quickly at decent stakes.

ianmc38

Aside from holdem, the game where the edge is biggest from low to medium stakes is O8. Even regulars in the games constantly make fundamental theoretical erros.

That said, I still think holdem is the best game to play for a living.

busted flush

sit n go heads up structures on ipoker are very soft any thing from $50 dollar down omaha or holdem! i play these alot and do very well by in large!

nicnicnic

I think people should find a niche that they are consistent winners at then experiment with a % of there profits until they find the game that's most profitable, that they achieve the highest hourly rate. this should be a long term continuous process.

having said that I'd say for most they will end up with either NLH or Omaha ring