Why is only Hold Em NL?

[UATrewqaz]

Omaha is played at most PL from what I can tell and stud always played at fixed limits....

Why don't "NL" Omaha and 7 Stud exist? Are the games just so fundamentally different NL wouldn't work?

[gobboboy]

Because if someone goes all in preflop the difference between hand strengths is so negligible that it would turn it into a crapshoot. Even AAJT DS in omaha isn't more than a 60% favorite over any other hand. 7stud is even worse unless you start with trips.

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.

[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.

[joel2006]

Big bet Stud is commonly spread in England, but rarely Stateside. The main reason is becuz the river card is down, which makes NL Stud way more dangerous than HE. For example if u have an ace high flush at the river in HE on an unpaired board u know your hand is good, in Stud even without a pair showing your opponent could have a hand as strong as quads.

[ohnonotthat]

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.

This will make tracking the size of the pot much easier since there will be no "odd-sized" bets to calculate.

It also makes it slightly easier if both blinds are the same size. (A few of the online sites do this now for NL holdem so you won't be "wrecking the purity of the game" [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]).

If the game still moves to slowly try replacing the blinds with antes while also using the 4-option rule.

- If the game has blinds of 1-2 change this to no blinds with a .25 or .50 ante per player, or have the dealer ante for everyone.

If all else fails employ a rule such as that used in Scrabble.

Allow anyone to bet any amount they want at any time but penalize them when they attempt to overbet the pot if anyone spots them. Also penalize the whistle-blower if it turns out the bet is within the allowed limits. (Loser of the challenge pays the bettor the amount of the disparity or a set amount such as "X" number of big blinds).

- If you choose to employ this arrangement expect the most frequent challenger to soon start insisting everyone "use their coasters and eat with a knife and a fork". [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[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.

[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

[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] )