Achieve victory in the game: Does a smaller pile deliver greater odds?
Check out this tweet from Daniel that sparks some poker debate:
- Here's the deal:
Imagine we're in a tournament, and the remaining players have standard payouts.
All players got their skills down pat.
Now, the chip leader has a hefty stack. Guess how many big blinds they're sitting on?
Average stack? You'd think about 20bb.
But we've got 8 players left in the game.
So, yours truly asks: Will the chip leader snag more money in No Limit Hold'em (NLH) or Pot Limit Omaha (PLO)? Here's a sneak peek at what's to come:
NLH will win by a landslide. Even commentators needed some help from artificial intelligence to figure out why. Take a look at this chatbot named Grok, which confirmed the NLH victory:
However, it's not unanimous in the poker world. Some pros definitely don't believe NLH is the frontrunner in this scenario. Here's what a few of them had to say:
Things got so interesting that many players pointed out that most picked NLH for no other reason than the chip leader's ability to push with their big stack.
That's essentially Daniel's take on the issue, summed up below:
Suppose the chip leader raises 3.5 big blinds with Q964 (a lousy hand). They have to commit just 5.5 big blinds to win 14. What are the percentages for these hands when playing all-in?
Make that same scenario in Hold'em, and the chip leader would have a massive advantage with a whopping 84.23% chance of winning versus just 15.49%. In short, the chip leader in PLO has a lot more wiggle room to make questionable calls, often forcing other players to fold even with strong hands.
With that in mind, let's revisit the original question of whether the chip leader would win more playing NLH or PLO. Considering the flaws in NLH compared to PLO in this context, it's safe to say PLO would give the chip leader a better shot at winning. In fact, in Dealers Choice tournaments, chip leaders often choose games with closer equity, while short stacks stick with games that offer less variance.
Want to know which games are on the leaders' and the short stacks' lists? Prepare yourself for some thrilling poker action:
For Chip Leaders:
For Short Stacks:
- What about the question of sports? Does the chip leader's advantage in NLH apply to sports-betting as well?
- In the given scenario, if the chip leader decides to shift to casino-games like poker in a casino-and-gambling setting, would they have a similar edge in games like Pot Limit Omaha (PLO)?
- If the remaining 8 players decide to engage in sports-betting instead, would the chip leader have a competitive edge due to their strong stack, considering the lower variance in NLH over PLO?
- In the context of poker debate, how does the argument for NLH's dominance in terms of chip leader's edge evolve when changing the game to sports-betting or other casino-games?
- If the chip leader were to wager on sports instead, would their strong stack in NLH translate into a larger advantage, or would the variance in sports-betting create unpredictable outcomes?
