I find it interesting that Daniel resents the game of NLHE/HE. This is a bad attitude. It's strange. I would think that regardless of the popularity of a single game, especially one that has made you your networth and which you are writing a BOOK dedicated to, you could be able to view it independently for what it is: a great game. Instead, I think you hate on it more than any other player, in fact is there a big name pro that hates on it?

Hold Em isn't OMAHA H/L or STUD H/L because...wait for it...it isn't! I actually play 2/4-3/6 horse all the time, and I don't prefer to play Hold Em, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a great form of poker.

Sadly, I'm seeing this attitude filter down to other players who play HORSE or any other form of poker and snicker about Hold Em.

This attitude is akin to something you find in middle school, "all the other kids are doing it so it must be stupid now!"

I think Daniel has to discover what's going on with his own psyche and motivation.

What gives, man. By all means write and preach brother about the other games, but why constantly at the expense of the image of Hold Em??

He doesn't hate the game at all, he simply enjoys so many types of poker and wants to make sure, through his blog, that the new breed of players are aware of and appreciate all forms of the game. I'm sure if any other game was so popularized the way that Hold'em is, he'd bore of that too. There's nothing intrinsic about hold'em itself that incites his criticisms, it's only the fact that most players only know hold'em and never experience the full range of poker. More than anything, he only wants to expand the popularity of other games.

Bingo. If all they showed on television, and everybody only played 7 Card Stud I'd be equally annoyed. No limit hold'em is a great game and I do enjoy playing it. I just hate the idea of playing any one game exclusivley, that's not poker.

I think you're right, and I reckon DN is right in thinking this way. DN knows that people can burn out more easily from playing just one form of poker.

There's been members of FCP and 2+2 who have posted about giving up the game, because they can't make money any more. Funny thing is, most of them are Holdem players who have probably played relatively few hands of other games.

NLHE just makes for much better television than most other games. Can you imagine that poker would have gotten so popular worldwide if the WSOP Main Event would have been played in 7-stud, Omaha8, 5-card-draw or 2-7 triple draw?
Hold'Em is very easy to understand, and NL ensures that there is a lot of exciting action and although there is a lot of luck involved in a single tournament, skill is just important enough so that the same people show up at final tables occasionally.

Hold'em is not my favourite game, but I don't think even I would watch poker on tv if stud8 or something would be the dominant game. I rather play that myself than watch other people do it.

Daniel (and others),

Thanks for responding. I agree with you that mixing up games does great poker make. But to say one game by itself is not poker, is being exclusionary yourself.

You're writing Power Hold 'Em, so you're feeding the same market that is making the game exclusively hold em in a public sense.

I think it's logical that the easiest game to play becomes the most popular. I also think that the big name pros should really make an effort to find the businesses, people, networks with big pockets that truly love poker to get mixed games televised.

I used typical baiting language in my first post to try to elicit a response (I know you don't "hate" the game).

Good point.


Don't bite the hand that feeds you, Daniel.

This is a good point. Hold'em is very easy to understand and entertaining to watch, which is why it has thrived in the television era. However, ESPN has shown other games on tv (Omaha, Stud, and even Razz) in the past and I found watching those games just as entertaining. I'm not sure it would be as entertaining or understandable to the casual viewer, but to those who really know poker, watching limit games can be very entertaining. They're just so much more subtle than NLHE and you don't get the QQ vs AK races that ESPN loves so much. Maybe at some point there will be a show that has big players playing a high stakes mixed game cash game ala High Stakes Poker.

Yes, I also thought they were interesting, but what I meant was that I would get sick of every one of these games much faster than NLHE - like if the WPT for example were played as Stud Hi/Lo I think it would be incredibly boring.

You say that "that's not poker" comment about things that are very much poker. When a person plays one poker game exclusively, that's still poker. When a fish jams for 10k after you make it 150 with cheese in the early rounds of a tourney, that's still poker. Tennis on the other hand, now that's not poker.

I run a poker league where the monthly tournaments are NL Hold Em, which is what the players want. But afterwards I have been making an effort to run a cash game that is mixed, among the games we play is Limit 2-7 Triple Draw, PL Omaha, 7 Stud, 3 Card Lo Ball Double Draw and 5 Card Stud. The players have been gradually migrating to the mixed game table and expanding their knowledge of poker beyond NL Hold Em.

I think that is the point Daniel is trying to make, is that poker, like art, has different forms. And they should all be enjoyed. Imagine a world of art that featured only Picasso or one musician or one genre of movies etc. That would be very frustrating.

Along these lines I think this years $50K H.O.R.S.E. tournament will do wonders for getting people interested in other games. I was disappointed that the final table of last years $50K event was decided over NL Hold Em. I can't wait to see the broadcast of this year's Final Table which will be true H.O.R.S.E.

BTW I read last week on CardPlayer that the amount of buy in chips at the WSOP will double this year for all events. $100K chips for H.O.R.S.E. is a lot of play!

I agree that different forms of poker should be at least be tried.

However, no one can complain about NL Holdem dominating the genre.... The Poker 'boom' has come about over the last 3/4 years because of Televised NL Holdem, the ease at which the viewer can watch the game, understand it, then play it. The reason that it's popular is because of how easy it is to understand the basic rules. This is complimented by it's high entertainment factor i.e - being able to bet all of your chips at one time. Basic fact = people like to watch big pots, huge bets, people taking big risks etc.

You can't expect the 50 million people around the world (rough estimate, maybe more), who have watched this from the comfort of their living room, to then say "Hey, I really like this, this looks fun. Which poker sites/card rooms host the best 7-Card Stud games?"

Of course they won't, they'll play Holdem. But, over time, just like any other poker player before the boom, many will inevitably find that they want to learn and play other forms of poker than the one they started out with.

So.. other games are starting to benefit more all the time from new/inexperienced players and this will continue.


It smacks a little of arrogance to suggest players that only play Holdem are not playing real poker. Especially as it's the huge numbers of new players that have made poker much more profitable for good players. And for the pros, not only on tour... NL Holdem has turned many big name pros into stars, and given them the opportunity to make good money outside of playing (books, sites, endorsements etc).

Give it time, and people will find different forms for themselves. As they already are doing naturally anyway.

Even Derrida could not deconstruct three words to this degree. You have completely missed the context of the phrase

I only play NLHE. I am not ashamed to admit it. I have tried PLO and O8 a few times but I am "dead money" in those games. (I am not ashamed to admit that either) I have only been playing NLHE for about 6 years. I enjoyed learning the game with friends in home games at the beginning and later online when the games were more than a few weeks apart. I started out at the micro limits and worked my way up to where I now play consistently at .50/1, 1/2, and occasionally 2/4. These levels aren't huge but are decent for non pro's where we can enjoy the game and if we have a winning session, can help pay for things that we might not otherwise purchase. I was just dating (my wife now) when I first took up the game and started to play online. Now I am married and have two kids. I don't have the time or desire to learn a new game at the micro levels or worse (free play). The guys I play with once a month in the home game enjoy NLHE. Most of us haven't been playing for 20+ years like many pro's who are around a "game" 24/7. The pro's and those that aspire to be pro's should know the other games because poker is how they make a living. For me to learn the other games would be purely for the enjoyment, but like I said, NLHE is relatively new for me so i still enjoy it. The majority of the poker "watching" world is the same way I am pretty sure. I would love to hear what the viewing stats are for the non hold'em games they televise during the WSOP. If I start to get bored playing NLHE and think it is monotonous then perhaps I will try and learn another game. If you want the world to start enjoying these other great poker games you need it televised on a regular basis (with instruction like on Celebrity poker) UGH!!! Did I just write that. Please no more celebrity poker though unless Clonie Gowan and (Insert name here) are hosting.
Anyway, what i'm trying to say is, I'll learn these other games if it is convenient to learn them but I am not going to learn them playing .01/.02. I have better things to do with my time like writing in this forum. LOL