No Limit: Poker imitates Boxing
I must recommend Andy Ward's diary. Ward and I don't share much in terms of our political viewpoints, but we think on similar lines about poker. You can read his wisdom at: http://www.pokersoft.co.uk/diary.htm

In his 18th July entry, he says that he doesn't believe that No Limit hold'em is the most skillful game and that the average strong tournament player would be better off to invest his time in other games, such as seven-card stud and pot-limit omaha.

He's not the only person to say that No Limit isn't the most skillful format. The same is said by David Ulliott, who thinks pot-limit is the truer test, Daniel Negreanu (pot limit), Mason Malmuth (limit) and David Sklansky (mixed games).

I was thinking about this today when I watched a boxing match on TV. In boxing, there are weight categories. Every category has an upper limit except for one: Heavyweights. Who earns the most money? The heavyweights. But are they the best boxers?

Comparisons are subjective, but boxing commentators often talk about whom they consider to be the best 'pound-for-pound' boxer. This is to overlook the obvious fact that the heavyweights can defeat the other boxers simply by hitting harder. The best pound-for-pound boxers are nearly always in the middle divisions (middleweights, welterweights etc).

So it's been known for ages that if you want to see the most skillful fighters at work, you shouldn't be watching the heavyweights. But does that change the commercial realities of the business? Not one iota! The public still pays more money to watch the biggest guys, where it can all be ended in one blow.

Rather like No Limit Hold'em and Television!