|
|
#11
11-04-2005, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Royal LHE on Ub
I emailed Ub about that and they don't know yet. This is what they told me;
Yes. It is possible that we can post some of these tables in the future but we can't confirm you this yet. Please feel free to contact us in case you have further questions or need more assistance. It is a pleasure to help you! 
|
|
#12
11-04-2005, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Royal LHE on Ub
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you feel qualified to estimate, how many BB/hour could a good player beat NL Royal HE for? [/ QUOTE ] Once it went over 100, I stopped counting. Every time you flop a set and somebody else flops a straight, you get all their chips. Eventually there would have to be some level of wising up to the game, but even then I think it would be substantially better than regular NL. [/ QUOTE ] Honestly, I think this game would be awful at 3/6 or higher after the first week or so. The strategy is incredibly simple. There just wouldn't be a whole lot seperating anyone. It's only good at the lower limits because people aren't thinking about the game what so ever. This game makes euchre look like bridge.
|
|
#13
11-05-2005, 03:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Royal LHE on Ub
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it can be wrong to stick to AA and KK, adding AK when you think you can get in cheaply. Be very conservative postflop without a set or top two pair. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're too tight. AK rules! It's still got 65% equity vs. a random hand (admittedly much less than AA and KK, but still a 2:1 favorite.) If the donks are going to play AT or random crap in the blinds, it would be a crying shame not to raise AK. I play AK 100% of the time and raise to enter, or raise vs. a limper. You are looking to make top two pair or trips. If you're up against AA or KK this is much less likely so you can usually leave the hand cheaply. Overall you are only a 2:1 dog vs. QQ+ (when the relative probabilities of the hands are included), so even against a tight opponent your folding equity makes this a hand to raise. Admittedly I just finished digging myself out of my initial fishy hole, so take this with a grain of salt. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#14
11-05-2005, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Royal LHE on Ub
You are dead on my friend. In the end it's all about the full house, period! When the board pairs and you don't have a piece of the house then you must fold.
|
|
#16
11-05-2005, 08:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Royal LHE on Ub
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] flushes are the hands you want to avoid. [/ QUOTE ] A flush will almost always lose in this game. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#17
11-05-2005, 08:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Royal LHE on Ub
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] flushes are the hands you want to avoid. [/ QUOTE ] A flush will almost always lose in this game. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The flush is always royal, and therefore always wins.
|
|
#18
11-05-2005, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Royal LHE on Ub
D'oh! You're right. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
|
|
#19
11-06-2005, 03:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Royal LHE on Ub
I've found even more players coming in to the game (.25/.50 and .5/1) and not knowing the game rules than even in TD. In TD you'll only occasionally get the "why didn't I win, I had trips!" type of people. In Royal you will routinely get people who go a few orbits before complaining about how the sight is rigged and giving out too many good hands as they continue to see their low two pairs and straights lose.
|
|
#20
11-06-2005, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Royal LHE on Ub
This game is great. Definite advantage for people who understand fundamental game theory.
I can finally justify folding pocket jacks to a raise. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I was just at a table where the board was a royal. And the villian bet on the river... "What are you betting for" "I don't know - I had a royal!"
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
