What are the main objectives of a poker tournament, aside from drawing in business for the host? People play poker for entertainment and to win money . A poker tournament should be a vehicle for providing entertainment and redistributing money according to some fair method. Although using pure luck would be one fair method of determining a winner, if that were really our objective, we could simply have a raffle. In all other non-poker tournaments and sporting events there is an implied concept that the best or most skillful performance should be rewarded. I believe that we all can agree that in poker tournaments also, skill should be rewarded. But what form of poker is most skill-responsive?

In several Card Player articles last year, there was some discussion and controversy as to which form of poker has the greater skill-factor, no-limit (Caro) or limit (Malmuth). Indeed, there is much to be said on either side. If a poll of the entire population of poker players were taken, no-limit would get the most votes (but most of these voters would not really be qualified to judge). There seems to be a popular (mis)conception that “real poker” is no-limit poker. No-limit poker is supposedly what the big-boys play; and indeed, they do play no-limit in most of the big world class tournaments. But is no-limit, or perhaps pot-limit, really the most skillful form of poker? Is there a correlation between skill and the size of the stakes? Does the safe handling of nuclear weapons require more mental skills than world class chess?

Most humans feel a primitive fascination for any brinkmanship situation (like moths with fire). But in many of these critical situations, there is little correlation between the seriousness of the consequences and the actual amount of skill required. In general, it is not always clear which games or situations are “stable” as opposed to skill-responsive. Although I am supposed to be one of the best bridge players, I make many more mistakes playing bridge than I do when driving my car.

Although I have always felt due respect and deference toward no-limit poker (it might even be the ultimate form of poker, whatever that means), I am now of the opinion that no-limit poker is probably NOT the most skillful form of poker. At least not in tournament poker. But, since most of my no-limit experience comes from playing in poker tournaments with make-believe chips, I must disqualify myself from giving opinions about the skill involved in REAL money no-limit poker. I am sure that when the big bucks are potentially on the line with every card, there must be much intensity and melodrama. And that very serious struggle probably includes some number of skill factors not normally found in limit poker or even tournament no-limit poker.

Perhaps much of the confusion and ambiguity on this subject comes from the fact that many of the “no-limit” skill factors might be more accurately catagorized as “human psychological” factors, as opposed to “poker” skills. That is, many of the “skill advantages” of one player over another in “no-limit” poker are actually “human” factors and are somewhat independent of the game itself. But, then again, most of these human skills and poker skills are so intimately blended that it is very difficult to separate them out.

Let’s take a minute to qualify some of the above and better define our terms. First, although much of what we are discussing applies to poker in general, we are actually directing ourselves specifically to holdem and Omaha. The term “skill-responsive” (or alternatively the “greatest skill factor”) to me means that form of holdem or Omaha which best rewards skill with good results. Note that there IS some difference between this “greatest skill factor” concept (which depends on the poker game itself) and skillful poker situations which depend on external aspects, such as “human psychological” factors, familiarity with the players, large bankrolls, etc.

So what is the most skill-responsive form of poker? My current thinking is mainly a result of my tournament experience. Although I have been winning my share of no-limit tournaments (about 10%), I have been doing phenomenally better at limit tournaments. And the reason is simply that I seem to be getting several more chances to NOT LOSE in the limit tournaments. A skillful player who is doing moderately well in a limit tournament can withstand an unlucky loss or two. Even a big unlucky loss (of course they are all unlucky) would probably cost no more than half his chips (except perhaps in the final inflated stages). In effect, his skill will have multiple chances to win.

At no-limit (or pot limit) a big loss usually means good-bye. And we all know a thousand sad stories of unlucky losses (both Omaha and holdem). Whereas we have some (but limited) control over our own destinies after-the-flop, we are much more at the mercy of luck in before-the-flop all-in situations. Thus, after rebuys are over, even the skillful player must win just about every major confrontation. Even if the skillful player manages to be as much as a two-thirds favorite on each pre-flop dual (better odds than usual), this skillful player still is a big underdog against surviving several of these before-the-flop duals. All good players have, by definition, skill enough to keep on the high-percentage side of other big-bet situations. And most winning players have developed a certain finesse for avoiding some of these pre-flop life-and-death struggles. But since everyone rates to go all-in on at least several of these luck dependent (non-lock) situations, it still requires extraordinary luck to win a no-limit tournament.

It is my opinion that some hybrid of no-limit and limit poker would be the most skill-responsive (but generally slanted towards no-limit). So let’s do a little light speculation as to what the skillful player should want. It is clearly nice to be able to bet whatever you think best (ie. no limit) when you have a lock. And all good poker players like setting up the big score - as naturally as the lion hunts. But, whereas the lion always gets to choose his game, in poker it is a two-way street; and sometimes the good player becomes the hunted. Even the best poker players find themselves getting forced into a luck dependent, potentially disasterous situation.

If we want to design a game with the maximum skill response, we clearly would like to have the maximum bet situations occur when we have the maximum knowledge about any given hand - which is later rather than sooner, ie. towards the end of the hand. I see no way to protect against last card situations. We all have to live with the good-to-great odds that we get, usually by choice, on all-in river situations. But most of us would very much like to avoid the thin odds we get on the early before-the-flop confrontations.

Thus, in my opinion, the single most important requisite of the “most skill- responsive form of poker” would be to do away with all-in before-the-flop betting. The second most important improvement would be to somewhat limit the first bet after-the-flop to give the expert more latitude in seeing the fourth street card, especially in Omaha.

A hybrid form of no-limit holdem or Omaha (called “CAVERN Rules”) which is suggested by the above is played as follows. The betting before-the-flop would be limited to three times more than the big blind with the usual three raise limit. The round of betting after the flop would be pot limit (with the dealer authorized to estimate the pot size to save counting time). The last two rounds would revert to no-limit table stakes. Thus, because the betting starts off slower than no-limit, the skillful player gets to see more cards for less money, gaining precious time and information, before making skillful big dollar decisions (this form would also avoid the all-in-on-aces syndrome in no-limit Omaha and give the game more depth). More knowledge to a skillful player translates to more dollars.

So is CAVERN really the most skillful form of holdem and Omaha? It probably is the most skillful form of no-limit! Please hold mail until rebuttals are in.