Should Pot-Limit or No-Limit Hold'em Crown our World Champion?

I'm going to take a break from what you'd normally expect from my column, because there is something I've wanted to clarify to the public for a long time.

This topic has always been a pet peeve of mine. It is a fact that no-limit hold'em tournaments are not the most skill-requiring version of hold'em. Yet, historically, no-limit hold'em has been called the "Cadillac of poker." I think that may be true in cash games, but it simply can't be true when it comes to tournaments.

There are far more decisions to be made in a pot-limit hold'em tournament than a no-limit hold'em event. More flops are seen, which means a "simple" preflop betting strategy isn't enough to succeed in this form of poker. In my opinion, it makes sense to switch the world championship event to pot-limit, since the winning player would have to utilize a more complete set of skills. Of course, I doubt that will ever happen.

There are many players in these no-limit events who rely strictly on a "system" they have created that allows them to hang in there long enough to get lucky – without having to make difficult decisions post flop. They simply move all of their chips in rather than make a moderate raise, and shut everybody out of the pot (it's not quite that simple, of course). I call these players "move-in specialists" (MISs).

Move-in specialists hate the early portion of a tournament. The more implied odds present, the worse the move-in specialists will do. For example, if the World Series of Poker main event stayed at the $25-$50 level for its duration, an MIS could almost never win. But, of course, that's not the case at all, as the blinds do go up and the implied odds and skill required decrease with every blind increase.

That's how the MISs shine. Most of them aren't very skilled post-flop, yet some are aware of this weakness and will avoid it at all costs. They decide to make all of their important decisions before the flop; that way, they can't be "outplayed" after the flop. The annoying part about this to me is that once the blinds and antes have reached a certain level, what they are doing can actually become a winning strategy!

Now, learning how to play a winning strategy in pot-limit would take so much more effort than it would in no-limit. You could easily learn to be a profitable no-limit tournament player by developing a solid preflop strategy. The same, unfortunately, is not true with pot-limit.

Many regular tournament players would disagree with what I've said, but it's likely they are MISs themselves! For those who disagree, think about the following scenario:

An excellent player has been challenged to play a heads-up freezeout by someone who has never played the game before. Would the excellent player do better playing no-limit or pot-limit? The answer here, of course, should be quite obvious. In pot-limit, he could safely grind the novice down without ever risking all of his chips, unless he held the nuts. In no-limit, the novice could use a strategy against the pro that of course wouldn't make him a favorite, but would make him a substantially smaller underdog.

So, what am I talking about here? Well, suppose you were in charge of giving this novice lessons on how to win this no-limit hold'em freezeout. What would you have him do? You certainly aren't going to tell him to try to outplay the pro! In order to give him the best chance of winning, you'd in fact tell him to move all in virtually every hand! Thus, he'd give the excellent player no opportunity to outplay him. The excellent player would be left simply with mathematical decisions based on his holdings. How boring.

Is the same true in pot-limit? Of course not. The novice player wouldn't have a chance with that same strategy. He'd be dead meat after the flop.

Over the last few years, I know of some computer whizzes who have been working on systems that could be implemented in a no-limit tournament that could almost guarantee you a long-term profit. Although I don't think anyone is quite there yet, I do believe they are close. It's likely you could develop a winning preflop strategy and have a monkey execute it. He certainly wouldn't be the favorite to win the tournament, but if your "program" was good enough, that monkey could likely show a profit in the long run. In fact, I believe that Chris "Jesus" Ferguson was able to win the "big one" by studying and analyzing a profitable preflop strategy that gave him the opportunity to win that event. (That's not to say Chris is a monkey; he just happens to be arguably the best all-around tournament player in the world today.)

So, what is this going to do to the no-limit tournament world? It's going to make it a lot tougher for the skilled players, that's for sure. Normally, I wouldn't be sharing this with you, as it will have a direct financial impact on me personally. Unfortunately, David Sklansky recently decided to write a tournament poker book that reveals some of these things that top players don't want anyone to know – strategies that will dramatically shrink the gap between the greatest of players and the average player. So, now you can expect to see a whole new army of MISs who will help turn a beautiful, classy chess match that poker should be into a boring, methodical card-catching contest.

In the NHL, they have the neutral zone trap that makes hockey boring, and in poker, we have the MISs in the second half of no-limit events, when flops are a rare occurrence. Ask me how I really feel about it!

Of course, I'm no dummy. I understand that the correct strategy in the second half of no-limit events changes, so I adjust accordingly. I pull out a good book, catch up on hockey scores, make some phone calls, and put the plane on autopilot. Of course, caffeine also becomes a necessity; otherwise, I'd likely doze off due to complete boredom! (I'm kidding, of course; I actually try to stay focused throughout the tournament.)

Editor's note: Daniel can be reached directly through his website at www.fullcontactpoker.com.