Adjustments for no qualifier

[senjitsu]

Hi all...

I recently played a stud H/L game at a BM cardroom where the low does not have to qualify. I've played some stud/8 before, and i feel pretty comfortable with hand selection, and having an idea where im at on 4th and 5th street.. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on how to adjust to the no-qualifier aspect of the game.

If specifics matter, its a 4/8 game with a .5 ante and a $1 bring in (on the high card-- perhaps because low hands are stronger). The game was very loose-passive on 3rd street (might have been 6 completions in 3 hours, but an average of 5-6 players s4eeing fourth) but tightened up a lot on 4th and 5th.

[Bartholow]

The original Super/System addresses this game in detail.

Basically you can't play any pure high hands, because they can't scoop. A pair of aces with a low card is still good. Rolled up big cards can be ok multiway, but headsup you are getting freerolled on from 3rd street pretty much. Good low hands, like 345 or A26 all-suited are the real monsters.

[jon_1van]

The only thing I actually KNOW about the difference between no qualifier and 8 high qualifier is that high hands like KK become 100% unplayable...turbo muck style.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
The original Super/System addresses this game in detail.

Basically you can't play any pure high hands, because they can't scoop. A pair of aces with a low card is still good. Rolled up big cards can be ok multiway, but headsup you are getting freerolled on from 3rd street pretty much. Good low hands, like 345 or A26 all-suited are the real monsters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rolled up big hands are never playable not against 1 person, and not against three. They are never playable. Think of this game as stud/8 except without the high hands (other than AA-baby) being playable.

Whoever has the best low on 5th will be freerolling everyone else who doesn't unless his low is pretty rough in which case whoever has the smoother low draw will be in good shape to scoop him. Not understanding this leads to alot of problems when playing Q.

[Andy B]

Albert Morehead gives the same advice. In the original S/S, Sklansky does not. I would probably take Morehead's advice over Sklansky's if we were discussing bridge or canasta, but in poker matters, I'll go with Sklansky. Sklansky does have most of the rolled-up hands as "usually playable," so playing them isn't automatic. Morehead does list AAA as a playable hand.

[Percula]

Where were you playing? Sounds exactly like the Fort in Phoenix.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky does have most of the rolled-up hands as "usually playable," so playing them isn't automatic. Morehead does list AAA as a playable hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I said big rolled up hand I ment 999-KKK. While DSK says they are usually playable, it's very easy to get into an awful mess unless you fill up by 5th. The non-stop freerolling means that you will be jammed mercilessly starting on 5th street if you are showing a paint. Personally I'd toss big trips in without a second thought in a Q game.

The No Q game can basicly be thought of as razz with complications.

[senjitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
Where were you playing? Sounds exactly like the Fort in Phoenix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep... ft. mcdowell.

[senjitsu]

thanks for the advice all... I hadn't realized that SS addrressed 7-stud with no qualifier... I haven't looked at it in a while. From what i've heard from others, it used to be played exclusively that way. Seems really strange, since the game is so different (just from the "feel" of playing one session, id say it plays a lot closer to razz than stud 8ob)

As an interesting note, the stated intent of removing the qualifier from the stud game was to make it more of an action game -- but the "action" created seems to be superficial, with big pots split between 2 players who put about 90% of the money in them. Except in an exceptionally loose or wild game, it seems like it would be difficult to make a good hourly rate.