Re: Odd hold\'em structure
 

Hi crackhead,

I respectfully disagree. It's not a very interesting or tactical poker game, but it's certainly more poker-y than 2-card guts or acey-deucy.

Although you can't raise, you are allowed to fold. There are wagering decisions to be made on every street. As long as my decisions are better than everyone else's, the game should be profitable.

PP

Re: Odd hold\'em structure
 

Yes, of course. There's a single bettor, and then many callers (many, many callers).

Checking is allowed. I don't know if checking around was allowed or not; the situation never came up [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

PP

Re: Odd hold\'em structure
 

Your best adjustment would be to find a real game, or to get your friends to learn the real rules. If you insist on playing here guess you could play etremely loose PF. IE call the blind without looking, then only proceed when you flop a monster.

.5 to see flop. If you have a monster you'll make 10 bucks (a single bet on the flop, turn and river), if not you fold and you've lost 50 cents. It still is a complete crap shoot though without raises.

Good luck, But I'd stay away
Matt

Re: Odd hold\'em structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Larry,

Sorry I wasn't more clear. Although the blinds are .25/.50, the bet preflop is $2. Both of the blinds have to complete to $2 to see the flop.

PP


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn;t see that yet so disregard my first reply. This game is retarded. I guess play really tight, but without raising you can't put yourself in many favorable situations.

Re: Odd hold\'em structure
 

If you could find out, I'd like to seriously know why they created this limitation and why they keep it. If it's a stakes limitation, then lower them and play poker, not call-along.

As for this format, I'd play a lot of suited connectors, if not all of them. One- and two-gap straights, big pairs. Small pairs are tough- you get the odds to catch, but you can't shorten the odds for others once you do.

Stay away from high-low card hands and don't let yourself be bothered by suckouts, because I assume there are a lot of them.

Why don't they just put $10 in the pot each and play blind-man's bluff? This isn't poker, it's just finding out who gets lucky.

Silly game, but if you have to play in it....

Re: Odd hold\'em structure
 

Hi Larry,

Okay, I lied a little bit. It's actually a .50/1.00 game with standard betting rules (one bet and 3 raises), but everyone's a maniac so it's capped on every street...typically one street per orbit isn't capped. So, it plays almost exactly like the game I described.

In SSHE it says that you can't play small pairs and suited connectors for multiple bets preflop, except for a few exceptions. I was wondering if this was one of the exceptions.

PP

Re: Odd hold\'em structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Larry,

Okay, I lied a little bit. It's actually a .50/1.00 game with standard betting rules (one bet and 3 raises), but everyone's a maniac so it's capped on every street...typically one street per orbit isn't capped. So, it plays almost exactly like the game I described.PP

[/ QUOTE ]

A LITTLE bit? Not even close. What exactly was the point of making up your stupid scenario?

Re: Odd hold\'em structure
 

Explain to me how's it's different, Larry.

If you get involved on one street, it costs you 4 bets. Period. There's no limping and hoping it doesn't get raised this time, because it does get raised.

It's capped 6-ways preflop, and gets down to capped 3- or 4-ways at showdown.

I honestly don't see how this is different than the game I described in the original post. Please explain to me why I'm wrong.

As to why I posted it the way I did...I wanted to emphasize the essential features of the game, and pare away any of the extraneous distractions. At worst, the game in the OP was a slight abstraction and simplification of the game I saw, but it seems like a reasonable starting point to start thinking about the game.

PP

<<added the last paragraph in the edit>>

Re: Odd hold\'em structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me how's it's different, Larry.

If you get involved on one street, it costs you 4 bets. Period. There's no limping and hoping it doesn't get raised this time, because it does get raised.

It's capped 6-ways preflop, and gets down to capped 3- or 4-ways at showdown.

I honestly don't see how this is different than the game I described in the original post. Please explain to me why I'm wrong.

As to why I posted it the way I did...I wanted to emphasize the essential features of the game, and pare away any of the extraneous distractions. At worst, the game in the OP was a slight abstraction and simplification of the game I saw, but it seems like a reasonable starting point to start thinking about the game.



[/ QUOTE ]

"At worst, the game in the OP was a slight abstraction and simplification"

You're kidding me, right? SLIGHT simplification? You change the game completely with this little "abstraction."

If you think that this:

"The blinds are .25/.50. The small bets are $2. The big bets are $4. THERE ARE NO RAISES --- there's only a single bet on each street.

Let's say the game is played 9-handed, with 6-7 people in for $2 preflop and 3-4 staying for the showdown"

is ANYTHING like this:
"It's actually a .50/1.00 game with standard betting rules (one bet and 3 raises), but everyone's a maniac so it's capped on every street...typically one street per orbit isn't capped. So, it plays almost exactly like the game I described"

then you need to restudy raising in poker.

The only thing I'll say is, you play your made-up scenario a LOT differently that your "real" scenario.

Stick to the actual facts if you do this again- don't waste our time.

Re: Odd hold\'em structure
 

I must be an idiot [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] -- I just don't see the difference.

In both games, if people want to play, they put in $2 preflop/flop and $4 turn/river.

In one game, they do so all at once. In the other game, they do so in .50/1.00 increments.

As a matter of fact, towards the end of the night, they stop going through the motions of "bet-raise-raise-raise" and simply put out the full amount at once "to save time".

Please explain to me how the games are different, Larry, because I just don't see it.

As far as "wasting your time" -- well, I don't know how to respond to that. I had a question that I didn't know the answer to, so I asked it.

PP