Are No Limit tournament pros +EV in non-No Limit WSOP events?

Is it better to understand the format, or to be a tournament specialist, in less popular WSOP events like Razz and Triple Draw? Barry Carter wonders that too.

Matt Perrins wins Triple Draw  bracelet the first time he plays

One of the things I really love about the World Series of Poker is how many non-No Limit Hold’em tournaments there are. It is a great advert for the game and a reminder that poker is about way more than just No Limit.

However, if we are being honest, if the 2014 WSOP was truly representative of the poker that is played around the world, it would be 99% No Limit, with maybe a PLO event thrown in.

Stud, Triple Draw, Hi/Lo variants, Fixed Limit and rotation games are not played by the vast majority of players. In fact, I would wager most of the field in some of the more esoteric events have rarely played them previously – yet are still happy to put up $1,500, $5,000 or even $10,000 to play in them at the series.

Which makes me wonder – in non-No Limit tournaments, is it better to be a cash game player who specialises in the format, or to be a No Limit player who specialises in tournaments? Would you, for example, back a Razz cash game regular over a No Limit tournament pro in the Razz tournaments at the WSOP?

The mixed games renaissance

JohnyBax wins Stud bracelet  the first time he plays it

I must say before I start, that these niche games are stronger than they have ever been. Thanks to online festivals like WCOOP and SCOOP, and even tours like the EPT that are hosting a much more varied roster. So to immediately derail what I said about nobody playing these games, it is starting to become feasible that some do.

But they will always still be more for cash game players, where at least on PokerStars you can usually find a game and stake you like for any format. Indeed, many of the biggest cash games online are formats like PLO, Omaha Hi/Lo and in particular Triple Draw has become immensely popular.

However, you will not find anyone who can really call themselves a professional specialist in Stud tournaments or Triple Draw tournaments, because those games are still few and far between.

But you do have specialists in cash games, and I think that is on the rise, in particular because there is still less information available for them. This is why I think Triple Draw is currently enjoying a boom, because it was very much the least popular game for a long time, so as such biggest lack of tactical information is available for it, so edges are bigger. 

Tournament experience or first time luck?

Are the rotation games too tough  for a No Limit specialist?

Even though these esoteric games are more widespread today, invariably it is still a minority that play them outside of the WSOP. But that doesn’t stop them from buying in.

A game like Razz or Triple Draw seems, on the surface, alien to No Limit Hold’em. You are dealt a different number of cards, the action is different and most significant the hand rankings are different.

Yet it would seem these differences are superficial if you are a tournament specialist. This has been proven time and again at the WSOP, in particular when we see someone win a bracelet in a format they have never played before. Literally the first time they try the game, they win the ultimate title.

Cliff ‘JohnnyBax’ Josephy won a Seven Card Stud bracelet the first time he ever played that game, and Matt Perrins did the same in Triple Draw. You could chalk this down to variance of course, but many of these formats have less variance, and the fields are incredibly tough. Not to mention that players like Perrins and Josephy are highly regarded tournament players – it seems too much of a coincidence.

Tournament poker is a game of chips

Do tournament skills matter the most regardless of the format?

I remember Triple Crown winner Roland De Wolfe saying as much when he won his bracelet in Pot Limit Omaha Hi/Lo. I recall he commented that his overall tournament game was what won him the gold, because he was not experienced in the PLO8 format. 

I am inclined to agree with him. Tournament poker is very situational, and although you may not quite understand the relative hand values in Razz, you will understand the stage of the tournament you are in and your relative chip position.

Tournament poker is probably more a game of chips than it is a game of cards. Knowing how to play high blinds, on bubbles, as a chip leader or a short stack, when to ladder vs when to go for the win etc etc.

I’m inclined to think that based on the current eco-structure of poker, where non-No Limit events are still few and far between, being a specialist in tournaments is a far greater asset than being accomplished in the poker format itself.

The two possible exceptions, in my opinion, are PLO and maybe mixed rotation games. PLO is so popular that I feel that not knowing the fundamentals would be too easily exploited by the PLO regulars. In the case of rotation games, perhaps there are just too many areas of weakness in a No Limit player for them to thrive – though I haven’t made my mind up on that one yet.

What do you think? If you were betting on a Razz tournament would you bet on Razz cash game players or No Limit tournament players? Are there some games that are too different from No Limit to expect a tournament specialist to do well in? Let me know in the comments box. 

Barry Carter is the editor of PokerStrategy.com and the co-author of The Mental Game of Poker 1 & 2. He has been working in the poker industry for nine years and in 2013 won the APAT Award for Best Poker Media Provider. You can learn more about his work here.  Follow Barry Carter on Twitter l Follow Barry Carter on Google+