|
Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
I guess it will be harder to collude as much because its limit, but I still say there aren't enough cards in the deck to make it a fair game if 2 or 3 out of six players are nexteling each other their hole cards.
I guess Im posting this first because noone else plays on UB anymore. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
I guess it will be harder to collude as much because its limit, but I still say there aren't enough cards in the deck to make it a fair game if 2 or 3 out of six players are nexteling each other their hole cards. I guess Im posting this first because noone else plays on UB anymore. [/ QUOTE ] Last I looked, 15k+ players as of 9:30 PM EST |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
what the fuk is royal holdem?
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Complete tard poker, how fun.
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
I just played it for a minute. Crazy. Flop two pair like every hand. Holdem with a pinochle deck. Sorta.
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
I just played it for a minute. Crazy. Flop two pair like every hand. Holdem with a pinochle deck. Sorta. [/ QUOTE ] A pinochle deck is double a euchre deck right? So the board could come out five aces. What the hell kind of game is that? |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
what the fuk is royal holdem? [/ QUOTE ] I'm guessing that it's holdem with only Tens, Jacks, Queens, Kings, and Aces. If so, it can be dealt 7-handed with no burn cards. 6-handed with three burn cards. Probably a nut-peddling game like Limit Omaha High, but with a higher risk of collusion, like the original poster stated, with the smaller deck. With two players holding 20% of the deck pre-flop, and with 35% known post flop, it would be incredibly easy to do. Add in the fact that everybody gets dealt broadway, and the worst you can have on the flop is a pair and a gutshot, and the fish have no chance. 31-1 to get pocket aces in this game. Someone correct me, please, if I'm wrong about the structure of the game. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Thats it
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
Complete tard poker, how fun. [/ QUOTE ] This game rules. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
If one could quickly throw together the math for ap erfect EV strategy on this one could go clean up
Looks like people are playing it $1/$2 (only 6 max). 20 card deck, A-T of each card. Every hand I've seen a winner is a full house, yet people still cap with 1 card straights, kinda sad. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Instead of "what hands beat me", it's "what hands can I beat"
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Played for a bit, and damn if this game isn't pure action. Very rare to see a fold pre-flop. I need to figure out the strategy for this game and start raking in the cash.
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
If one could quickly throw together the math for ap erfect EV strategy on this one could go clean up Looks like people are playing it $1/$2 (only 6 max). 20 card deck, A-T of each card. Every hand I've seen a winner is a full house, yet people still cap with 1 card straights, kinda sad. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm... how about something like this... play all pocket pairs and nothing else, play aggressively if you flop a set or better, fold if you don't. Are ANY no pair hands worth playing? It would be nice if some math-savvy person could calculate how often the board will pair given that you have two cards of different rank in your hand. I'm guessing AKs will be still worth playing, but given how often the board pairs and someone will hold a boat/quads it might be marginal. Which hands should be raised preflop? (A guess: AA and KK, plus occasionally lower pairs just to mix up your play.) |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm... how about something like this... play all pocket pairs and nothing else, play aggressively if you flop a set or better, fold if you don't. Are ANY no pair hands worth playing? It would be nice if some math-savvy person could calculate how often the board will pair given that you have two cards of different rank in your hand. I'm guessing AKs will be still worth playing, but given how often the board pairs and someone will hold a boat/quads it might be marginal. Which hands should be raised preflop? (A guess: AA and KK, plus occasionally lower pairs just to mix up your play.) [/ QUOTE ] AK/AQ are quite a bit better than TT or JJ, as underfulls are sucker hands in this game. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hmmm... how about something like this... play all pocket pairs and nothing else, play aggressively if you flop a set or better, fold if you don't. Are ANY no pair hands worth playing? It would be nice if some math-savvy person could calculate how often the board will pair given that you have two cards of different rank in your hand. I'm guessing AKs will be still worth playing, but given how often the board pairs and someone will hold a boat/quads it might be marginal. Which hands should be raised preflop? (A guess: AA and KK, plus occasionally lower pairs just to mix up your play.) [/ QUOTE ] AK/AQ are quite a bit better than TT or JJ, as underfulls are sucker hands in this game. [/ QUOTE ] Okay... KQs should be okay to, due to its straight flush and nut flush potential, no? How about QJs, AJs and ATs? Are you suggesting playing AKo and AQo in any position? How should you play JJ and TT? Only in LP in unraised pots? How about QQ? (Sorry if it's too many questions.. I got pretty into this game... never heard of it before.) |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Umm.. I can't find these games at UB?
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
Umm.. I can't find these games at UB? [/ QUOTE ] They're listed under holdem, with Type Royal. It's weird, but if you go to holdem and click on the type column they should pop to the top. As for strategy: Thread from the Other Poker archives. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
The most annoying thing about this game is the way everyone keeps saying 'nh' when someone gets a full house...
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Ok, thanks.
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Just giving this game a try..got quite an interesting situation i thought i would share:
If you have AA and flop top set, then you can only be beaten by quads or a str8 flush. E.g. You: AA Opponent: KQ Flop: A T J Even though your opponent has you beaten, you can still only lose to quads or a str8 flush. This is because (barring quads or str8-flushs) one of 2 things will happen: 1, The board will pair, and you now have a full house beating villian's straight. 2, The board will make the nut str8 and you will split the pot. This just shows how strong AA is in this game.. Conversely, i think hands like TT and JJ are poor as you are pretty much always going to be drawing to 2 outs. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
Just giving this game a try..got quite an interesting situation i thought i would share: If you have AA and flop top set, then you can only be beaten by quads or a str8 flush. E.g. You: AA Opponent: KQ Flop: A T J Even though your opponent has you beaten, you can still only lose to quads or a str8 flush. This is because (barring quads or str8-flushs) one of 2 things will happen: 1, The board will pair, and you now have a full house beating villian's straight. 2, The board will make the nut str8 and you will split the pot. This just shows how strong AA is in this game.. Conversely, i think hands like TT and JJ are poor as you are pretty much always going to be drawing to 2 outs. [/ QUOTE ] great post. any other nuggets like this? or is it only AA flopped set that results in a situation /rule like this? |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Sigh, I guess I'm going to spoil the beans on how to really play this game. Pretty much, my starting hands consist of AA, KK, AK, KQ, and QQ. That's it. Suitedness has no effect as royals are so rare. It's of course a 20-card deck so your outs are like so:
After the flop: 1/15 = 1:14 2/15 = 1:7 3/15 = 1:4 4/15 = 1:2.75 5/15 = 1:2 After the turn: 1/14 = 1:13 2/14 = 6:1 3/14 = 3.7:1 4/14 = 2:5:1 Flopping a straight is an automuck in a full-table game. You are at best tied by the river. Bottom set is also pretty dangerous. Case in point: You have JJ flop shows KQJ You lose to KQ and QQ (albeit unlikely) if a Q or a K comes, and even if you aren't behind them, an AK or KQ can also pick up an Ace or King on the river. Your best shot here is to have runner-runner Tens. The only hands that would beat you then are the other pocket pairs KK and QQ. Middle set can be quite profitable if you know how to play it however. Case in point: You have QQ, the flop shows KQT If the board pairs the ten, you likely have the best hand unless you're up against KK. It's a very good way of getting a decent pot, and I play QQ for just this reason. If the K pairs however, you're losing to KT, KQ, and KJ and AK if they improve on the river. Top set and top two pair is what you should shoot for. With top two pair you have 4 outs twice (provided there are no royal draws and you don't run into quads), or (4/15)+(4/14)=55% which means you're a favorite from the flop. Bet/raise/cap. Top set, likewise. Unless you run into quads or the board shows a straight, you will win. Anywho, I know this is formatted pretty ugly, but I hope ya'll enjoy anyhow. -Boolean |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
any other nuggets like this? or is it only AA flopped set that results in a situation /rule like this? [/ QUOTE ] Thinking this through a bit more, when you have a set you can not lose to a straight (for the reasons stated in my previous post) as the board will always pair or make the nut straight (which is the only straight you can make in this game btw). The great advantage to having AAA is that you cannot lose to a higher full house, which is obviously your greatest concern if you flop a lower set. I guess that when you flop a set you actually have either a straight or a full house... as its impossible to get to a showdown and just have a set. The same also applies to trips..you will always make a str8 or full house by the river. Also, the odds of flopping a set are 2.5:1, and the odds of making a set by the river are 1.2:1 |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Judging from the table chat, players are stumbling into the game not realizing the premise. I suspect we're in for a spate of "UB is rigged" posts.
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
I just got reported for cheating because apparently I knew what was coming [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]
Lori |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
I just got reported for cheating because apparently I knew what was coming [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] Lori [/ QUOTE ] By somebody with a straight? |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
More interesting points:
If the board does not pair then the best you are doing is splitting unless you have the flush. This is for the simple reason that the best hand is on the table. If it is not a 3 or 4 flush board then it is a split. The question is: how many of the players will realise that? --------------------------------------------------- 2 pair is a dead hand. It cannot win ever. This is why: 1. If the board didn't pair then you are at best splitting 2. If the board did pair (not on your cards) then at least 1 of the other players (assuming all 6 are in) MUST have either a str or a FH. This is because only 3 cards don't play so one of the players MUST have the card that completes the str. ------------------------------------------------------- Trips are a dead hand unless you fill up. Same reason as above. ------------------------------------------------------- I'm sure there are more and I will add them if I think of them. This can be an amazing game to catch some fish. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
2 pair is a dead hand. It cannot win ever. [/ QUOTE ] I've seen several showdowns where two pair beat a worse two pair, or players split playing the 2 pair on the board. It happens more often shorthanded. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Yep.
But if all 6 players are in to the showdown then this can NEVER happen. |
Chance of the board pairing
He we go.
Very simple calculation: Calculate the chance of board NOT pairing: First card is irrelevant. Say A. Second card must not be an A so can only be 16 out of the 19 left. Third card is 12/18. Fourth card is 8/17. Fifth is 4/16. Give 16/19 * 12/18 *8/17 * 4/16 = 0.066 So chance of pairing = 1-0.066 = 0.954 or 95.4%. Next I need to calculate what the chances are of winning if you have a PP. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
Here's my strategy so far:
Play AA. Catch top set. Cap every street. And I'll say it again, don't play in my games! |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
Here's my strategy so far: Play AA. Catch top set. Cap every street. And I'll say it again, don't play in my games! [/ QUOTE ] That could actually work..i calculated that the chances of you getting AA is about 31:1. Stick in KK and AK and your rocking! Also, it seems your equity edge with big cards is reduced. I.e. AK is not as big a favorite against QJ as in normal Holdem. |
Re: Chance of the board pairing
[ QUOTE ]
He we go. Very simple calculation: Calculate the chance of board NOT pairing: First card is irrelevant. Say A. Second card must not be an A so can only be 16 out of the 19 left. Third card is 12/18. Fourth card is 8/17. Fifth is 4/16. Give 16/19 * 12/18 *8/17 * 4/16 = 0.066 So chance of pairing = 1-0.066 = 0.954 or 95.4%. Next I need to calculate what the chances are of winning if you have a PP. [/ QUOTE ] You can actually use standard tools like Pokenum or Pokerstove for this game, just mark all cards 9 and lower as dead. |
Re: Chance of the board pairing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He we go. Very simple calculation: Calculate the chance of board NOT pairing: First card is irrelevant. Say A. Second card must not be an A so can only be 16 out of the 19 left. Third card is 12/18. Fourth card is 8/17. Fifth is 4/16. Give 16/19 * 12/18 *8/17 * 4/16 = 0.066 So chance of pairing = 1-0.066 = 0.954 or 95.4%. Next I need to calculate what the chances are of winning if you have a PP. [/ QUOTE ] You can actually use standard tools like Pokenum or Pokerstove for this game, just mark all cards 9 and lower as dead. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] Didn't think of that. Though it is a lot of typing. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
ty ty
|
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
Judging from the table chat, players are stumbling into the game not realizing the premise. I suspect we're in for a spate of "UB is rigged" posts. [/ QUOTE ] I was thinking the same thing. There have GOT to be people playing this game that don't realize that it's Royal. "Look at this hand history! What a run of cards!" |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
Okay... KQs should be okay to, due to its straight flush and nut flush potential, no? [/ QUOTE ] Umm...I hate to break it to you, but there is no straight flush, there is no nut flush, there is only a royal flush. And you are as likely to get it with KQs as you are with ATs or AQs or KJs, etc. Flush=Winner in this game because every flush is royal. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Okay... KQs should be okay to, due to its straight flush and nut flush potential, no? [/ QUOTE ] Umm...I hate to break it to you, but there is no straight flush, there is no nut flush, there is only a royal flush. And you are as likely to get it with KQs as you are with ATs or AQs or KJs, etc. Flush=Winner in this game because every flush is royal. [/ QUOTE ] Similarly, connectedness is worth exactly 0 in this game, because every straight is identical (A-T). Edit: I did a lot of math on this game with the help of pokerstove when it first came out in play money. If I can find it, I'll post it here. |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
So suitedness and connectedness are virturally or totally worthless.
Thus the only value left is high card'ness and pair'ness. I'm guessing AA/KK/AKs/AKo are the best hands in the game and if you stuck with these three you'd usually have the best of it. What are the odds of getting one of these hands on a particular deal? 3.1% for AA 3.1% for KK 8.4% for AKs and AKo Thus you have a 14.6% (1 in 7 roughly) chance of picking up one of these hands. Solid? |
Re: Ultimate spreading Royal Holdem, but only limit
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.