Why is only Hold Em NL?

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Institute a rule wherby you have only four options as to the size of your bet and make these options:

Check, 1/4 pot, 1/2 pot or the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not a good idea. If you take away the opportunity to bet any amount up to the pot, you take away the ability for people to make mistakes.

My suggestion is just to deal with a slower game until everyone gets used to counting the pot. You can make it a little easier by going with two blinds of the same size. If you go with two differing blind sizes, just don't count the SB in the size of the pot for bet size purposes.

Also, until people are comfortable, you could stack the pot into stacks of a specific size so you can tell at a glance how much is there. It's not ideal but will speed up the game.

Regards,

T

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolute Poker has NL Omaha Hi/Lo and Omaha High. But why not have NL tourny's at the WSOP. Good point. When we play O8 at home, we play NL b/c figuring out the PL is too much work. Any one have any good advice of an easy way to do this? I can't tell you how many times we cancelled the PL idea because of the work.

[/ QUOTE ]

just stack the chips, when someone says "i bet/raise pot" just match the pot?

[cpk]

7-stud has the additional problem of having 5 betting rounds, and that is thought by most to be problematic with a big-bet format. There's a variant called "Mississippi" that combines the last two rounds and therefore allows for a more comfortable 4-round betting structure, but that seems to me to be a fundamentally altered game.

[WhiteWolf]

Drawing hands play a much bigger roll in Omaha then they do in Texas Hold'em. With a NL structure, Omaha often devolves into the player with the made nuts automatically pushing to keep all of the draws out. The PL structure allows for much more strategic play.

Maybe if all the SNGs do someday turn into eV-neutral pushbot fests (as has been hypothesized on this board), you will see a switch to pot-limit. That would be interesting.

[ohnonotthat]

Any structure will work if enough people agree that it works.

P-L stud is played in both Europe and Austrailia; I've never seen N-L stud or N-L holdem (aside from the games at Absolute) but 20 years ago I'd never seen any type of Omaha.

Tradition dies hard - nowhere moreso than poker.

*

As to the claim that omaha and stud feature starting hands that are run extremely close in value - true for omaha, not true for stud. (We also need to define "close"; it's true that matchups where the better hand is more than a 60/40 favorite are virtually non-existent in omaha but if I can repeatedly get my chips in the middle with a 60-40 or even a 55-45 edge I like my chances for winding up with all the chips).

A higher pair wins ~ 2/3 of the time vs lower pair in stud if the lower pair's kicker is lower in rank than the higher pair and ~ 2/5 of the time with an overcard kicker.

A 3-flush is a huge dog to a pair unless the 3-flush has 3 o/c's to the pair or 2 o/c's with straight potential. (And who is going to call a big bet with a small pair).

In holdem, when one player pushes allin and is called you frequently see pair vs. 2 overcard confrontations - hardly a David-Goliath type battle.

If there does exist a well thought out reason for the dearth of P-L (or the non-existence of N-L) stud it might have to do with the HUGE edge the expert has over the "beginner" (see: nitwit).

I have a friend who used to find (and participate in) alot of P-L stud while overseas back in the 70's. This person is wont to neither lie nor embelish so my inclination is to take as gospel his claim that in 100+ sessions he never booked a loser.

The expert's edge in N-L or P-L is big in all forms of poker but perhaps nowhere as much as in stud. (N-L hi-draw also crucifies the weak player, especially when all the chips go in before the draw. Coincidentally, limit hi-draw is also unforgiving to weaker players; I wonder if that has anything to do with why you never see either anymore. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] )

[AaronBrown]

In a good no-limit game you should get a lot of information about your hand before the first betting round (or, as others have said, starting hands should not be too close in value) and you should have a lot of information about other players' hands before showdown. In the best limit games, neither of these things are true.

The classic no-limit game, that is silly when played at limit, is five card stud. You know 40% of your hand before the first betting round, and you know 80% of everyone's hand by showdown.

The classic limit game, which does not play well no-limit, is five card draw. While you know five cards before the first round, you typically throw away two or three of them; and because you pick the ones to throw away, the cards you get have more information than dealt cards. You know almost nothing about other players' hands at showdown, just what you can guess from their draw and betting.

Seven card stud high and hold'em play well either way. Omaha, draw and any lowball or high low game play best at limit.

[Don Olney]

Omaha is best played at POT LIMIT----Draw and LOWBALL are GREAT POT LIMIT games

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

There are NL Omaha games on 'Stars. I know of some home games that play PL stud, and Lowball draw in both variants is often played NL.

[ChuckyB]

I played the NL Omaha 8 on Stars, and it's just crap. I won a bunch of money, but the game is ridiculous. Get a good hand pre-flop, push all your crap in and pray.

Plus, I don't think any hand is a real dominating favorite pre-flop like in holdem...so you could lose a lot in a hurry trying to bully with a 60-40 favorite.