What Will Replace Hold'em?

[Al Mirpuri]

What will replace hold'em as the premier poker game?

For those who feel it will never be toppled as the most widely played poker game allow me to remind you that Five Draw players and Seven Stud players probably felt the same way.

Is the coming game David Zanetti's Mississippi Stud? Or Crazy Pineapple? Or Moscow Stud (Seven Stud but all up cards are communal a la Hold'em and dealt one at a time whilst all hole cards are private as in Seven Stud)? Or what?

Yes, I do recognize that casinos and respected theorists are in positions of power and able to influence the acceptance of a game but the ordinary player has to want to play it. In the current home game I play in (played bigger in B&M joints but that is by the by) we all played 7stud. I introduced Hold'em and EVERYBODY BITCHED. Now the game is dealer's choice and no one chooses 7stud as their first choice. Folks are funny.

Any suggestions much appreciated.

[roGER]

Hello there,

At the moment, there is no likely successor to Hold 'Em.

Purely by accident, the game's inventors stumbled across the perfect blend of apparent simplicity, enough luck to keep the fish interested, and just enough skill to ensure the best players win in the long run. Then there are 4 betting rounds to make the pots big enough to attract people...

Having said that, Hold 'Em has evolved to the present big blind, small blind structure. I believe that back in the 1970s and early 80s, Hold'Em had a single blind structure that made it much more mechanical game...

So... at the moment, I'd say all other poker games (at least in public cardrooms) are endangered by Hold'Em - there is no sucessor.

- roGER

[Schmed]

Maybe omaha 8 because of the action.

[Phat Mack]

I wish I knew. I know that once poker stops evolving, it will be dead. The new game might be entirely different, but maybe there will only be small changes, as with the betting structure. So the next big thing might be three card triple draw lowball, or it might be three card hold 'em, limit before the flop, no limit after...

[Ed Miller]

I'm currently putting the finishing touches on Pot Limit and No Limit Indian Poker for Advanced Players. Mason should be on the lookout for my manuscript sometime this week.

[AmericanAirlines]

Geez Roger,
I don't know about that.

I figure that the reason HE became popular was the books on it for one. Next, David S. wrote that for the expert the Standard Deviation was less, and that the blind structure, vrs. the ante stucture of 7 stud made it harder for the "suckers" to keep up.

Sounds like the perfect marketing hype to aim at wanna be pros to me.

I still feel 7-stud is the better balanced game.

But, unless your standing on the East Coast, no one seems to agree. It is grudgingly that I've started switching to HE, simply for reasons of # of available games on any given day.

But then, perhaps I need that "graduated ante structure" to help me out. Chances are I'm a fish.

Sincerely,
AA

[Al Mirpuri]

I am not a believer in the inherent superiority of hold'em over other poker games. I think its popularity does have a lot to do with its promotion by Binions as the WSOP world championship event and the consequent advent of a body of topnotch Hold'em poker literature.

Europe is Christian not because Christianity is true but because during a civil war in the Roman empire one would be emperor dreamt of the Christian insignia (I forget just what it was) and thought this an omen. He was to wage battle the next day and promised the Christian God (as opposed to all those other gods the Romans worshipped) that he would propogate Christianity if he were victorious. He won the battle. His name was Constantine. The rest is history. [Anyone one who wants to post God works in mysterious ways need not bother.]

Most players play hold'em because that is what is available.

(PS: AA, I have read a number of your posts. Much impressed. Keep up the good work.)

[Easy E]

and, unless i'm reading your intentions incorrectly, that this will occur in the nearer future.

Why do you think this is true? What exactly sparked your musing?

Didn't 7-stud generally replace 5-draw because of the larger pots created by multiple betting rounds, and the greater chances of drawing out? Isn't stud being supplanted by Holdem in many places because of its apparent simplicity, overall speed, larger table size (and equivilent increase in house take), etc.... along with, of course, the marketing and primacy that it has in the poker consciousness currently?

Your question IS an interesting question to pose- I'm just not sure any current form of poker out there blends risk/skill/stableness/speed as well, IMO.

One comment on Moscow Stud- aren't you just taking the "worst" of Stud (early tightness of play) and overlaying on a structure that will make it even MORE difficult? With one shared card at a time (I assume, otherwise it's just a Crazy Pineapple or Omaha variation), I can't see any worthwhile action sustaining play over the long term.
Plus, unlike stud, your gain (card helps your hand) doesn't also help others... in that, the hands that they are building don't gain by your card being removed from the deck, therebye making theirs more likely to catch- they are severely crippled instead. You've effectively created a 6-card vs. 7-card situation, and that CAN'T be good for poker.

Never having played Mississippi Stud either (but having seen many of the early promotional writeups on it), I never understood what you gained by dealing 2 upcards at once on 3rd street. Maybe someone who has played this regularly can comment on the pluses and minuses of what seems like a Holdem-style stud game.

I enjoy all kinds of poker games, but I much prefer multiple betting rounds and a fair amount of luck in a game, because I think it draws people (especially new players) to it more attractively.

[J.A.Sucker]

I have never played the modified hold em games described above, but if the flop were 1 card at a time, or even 2 cards, then the game would be vastly different. Pocket pairs would go up in value a great deal, and suited connectors would become worthless, since you'd seldom find any reason to play on. Further, if you flopped a pair of A's or a set, then you'd likely want to slowplay a bit, since you'd have people drawing against you. These games would be TERRIBLE, since bad players would get cleaned out quickly, due to the relatively small changes in strength of hands between betting rounds. Maybe a 3 tiered betting structure would improve these games, but they just sound terrible to me.

A stud variant where you got dealt 2 upcards at once would then change a lot of hand values, and would likely make it a looser game, since more of the hand is revealed in a single betting round. Of course, since I really haven't seen any of these games, I can't vouch for anything I said above, but this is what I believe to be so - of course, I'm Just Another Sucker. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Phat Mack]

Not a bad idea. One reason that hold 'em is so popular is that it works well in public card rooms - lots of hands per hour and nine or ten players: all of which lead to bigger profits. One reason that the declare left hi-lo games is that is difficult to administer.

If the next big poker medium is going to be the internet, the next big game might be NL indian. It would go fast and be very easy to program...

All in. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Al Mirpuri]

I did not mean to seriously suggest that Moscow Stud or Mississippi Stud would supplant Hold'em. I merely wanted to get people thinking about what could supplant Hold'em.

Moscow Stud is played (2)1-1-1-1-(1)-. The dashes represent betting rounds and the brackets represent the hole cards. The numerals representing cards dealt to each person at that point. All cards outside the brackets are communal.

Moscow Stud punishes chasers and rewards strong hands made at the start. This leads to smaller pots but less variance. I only play it in a home game that is all dealer's choice. As you can imagine, in such a game the variance can be huge and Moscow Stud is one of the more saner games played.

I though your own comments on Moscow Stud very astute.

I have also played Mississippi Stud in the same home game. The benefits of Mississippi Stud are as follows. Dealing 4th and 5th street together in a two card 'flip' means that many more hands are playable. Between 3rd street and 5th street there is only one betting round. It creates more early action. Dealing the river card face up makes hand reading easier and bluffing harder. Dealing the river card face up decreases your variance.

David Zanetti is a bit of a controversial figure. As the originator of Mississippi Stud (and some other poker games) he can be a little earnest. He has his own site. Go to google.com and put in "Mississippi Stud" you'll see his site if you want more info on his invention.

[Jimbo]

'If the next big poker medium is going to be the internet, the next big game might be NL indian. It would go fast and be very easy to program... Phat Mack if N/L Indian poker is available online it would be wise to hold two seperate accounts! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Phat Mack]

Always thinking one shot ahead, eh, Jimbo? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[JTG51]

Funny you should mention that, majorkong. I was just discussing Pot Limit Indian Poker* with a friend the other night. We thought Hi/Lo Pot Limit Indian Poker would be a nice variation. Hopefully you still have time to add an appendix to your book. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

*I should mention, I'm pretty sure it was Clarkmeister that inspired me by joking about playing PLIP with his GF's daughter.

[dux]

I found David Zanetti's site, and introduced Mississippi Stud into my home games. I dealt it occasionally, but it died eventually to the 'Big Three' games at our table - Omaha, Omaha 8 and Draw. Holdem isn't popular, I think because it doesn't promote much action.
I don't know why people play draw, it's what we started out playing the whole time, before we knew of any variants, and I think a few people at our games don't think of the other games as being real poker!

I'm Australian, and my first trip inside a Casino was surprising, because I found out one of the most popular games at the Poker Room here, is Manila.
For those who don't know, it is played with either 2 or 3 hole cards and the deck is reduced (A-7 for Three Card Manila, A-6 for the Two Card variant). You are dealt your hole cards and a community card is dealt - first betting round follows. Then, the next four hole cards are dealt one at a time with a betting round after each. To make your hand, you must use BOTH your hole cards like Omaha.
One way of looking at it is that it is like a combination between Hold'em (2 hole, then 5 on the board), Omaha (use 2 from the hand, 3 from the board), Moscow Stud (2 hole cards and one on the board for the first round) and Mississippi (the last card is dealt face up).
The betting structure is different to most games as well. There are 5 betting rounds for starters. There is one blind, like a 7 stud bring in, the same size as a holdem small blind. The first raise is twice the blind, so in $2 Manilla, the first player blinds $2 and the first raise is to $6. The rounds are then $4 in this example, until the last round, which is four times the blind, so $8. Very strange game. But as I said, it is popular in Australian casinos all over. Basically, your going to need the nut straight or a full house from what I heard from my freinds who played it. A flush is higher than a full house, aces can't make low straights.

As for growing in home games , it's tough to call in a dealers choice, because you need another deck ready with the removed cards, assuming you don't want to take cards out every time.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Here on the east coast, we're still waiting for Hold 'em to replace 7 stud. Go to Mohegan off-peak and you'll be lucky to find 2 Hold 'em tables, but there'll be 10 or 15 stud tables running.

[Gitz]