Theory of Fusion? (1 Viewer)

[Kain8]

Curious what some of the great minds of mixed games (@abby99 @BGinGA @detroitdad come to mind) think of this. I personally think it's just a way to destroy any edge a player has skill wise so Pokerstars can get that sweet, sweet, rake from uneducated micro players.

From: https://www.pokernews.com/news/2018/11/pokerstars-fusion-game-32556.htm?itm_content=pn-hp-hero-3


The Basics of Fusion

Fusion will be a hybrid of two different games, PLO and NLHE.

This game starts like hold'em and morphs into Omaha.

Played pot-limit and six-max, Fusion begins with each player receiving two cards. A normal hold'em round of betting follows, and then a flop arrives.

This is where the game begins to alter, as each player receives a third card at that point. Action continues, and everyone left after the turn receives another card, completing the hole cards into a four-card Omaha hand.

At that point, the game becomes regular PLO, with players required to use two cards from their hands to make a five-card hand at showdown.



Is there a way to actually succeed at this game? i.e. nut peddle with sets, top 2 pair, nut flush and/or straight draws, and muck everything else? Or with everything changing so radically, is it too chaotic to have even a basic strategy?

 

[Jimulacrum]

Weird game, but a decent strategy shouldn't be tough to figure out. The board structure and everything are the same as PLO. The nuts is still the nuts.

One important thing to note is that, at showdown, hand values are likely to be worse than in standard PLO, because 2 of the 4 hole cards are essentially random add-ons instead of cards each player chose to play. But they'll still be better than Hold'em, since you do have more cards and they'll occasionally hit the board.

But you can't control those random cards. All you can control are the decisions you make, and one decision that's important is to get in there with good openers. Set-mining will be one of the more valuable practices, since a set is pretty much the only Hold'em hand that translates well into PLO.

You can also play some of your more premium suited connectors and the occasional suited ace, given the right spots (i.e., relatively cheap to see a flop). You get a third hole card with the flop, so you will see 3/4 of your hole cards and 3/5 board cards if you get through the preflop betting round. In general, play openers that either have strength on their own or that are halfway to an excellent PLO opener.

With the halfway types of hands, you'll usually want to get to the flop cheaply. With your strong hands, you'll want to play mostly like Hold'em; if you can get an opponent all-in preflop with AA or KK, great. The results will be a little more variable than in Hold'em, but the difference shouldn't be too extreme.

A new element that this introduces is having a draw within your hand. For example, you can have just the on a board of , and you are still legitimately drawing to the nut flush because you could catch the spade in the hole. Same deal if you have a filler card on a straightening board, e.g., on a flop of .

One other small thing: the additional cards may make it easier to bluff—on the turn especially—against opponents who are constantly afraid of monsters under the bed. Remember, average hand values will be lower than in PLO, so if the turn or river changes the board texture a lot, it will be more common for no one to have the nuts.

 

[detroitdad]

But you can't control those random cards. All you can control are the decisions you make, and one decision that's important is to get in there with good openers. Set-mining will be one of the more valuable practices, since a set is pretty much the only Hold'em hand that translates well into PLO.

I was going to say something similar.

Hell, he is pretty much spot on with his reply imo.

great minds of mixed games

Just because I play them doesn't mean I'm any good at them lol.

I would be willing to try this game. Maybe I'll see if the crew coming out on the 16th want to give it a shot.

Why 6 max? This could be played at a full table.

Getting cards after the flop and turn kind of give it a Dra2maha feel.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Getting cards after the flop and turn kind of give it a Dra2maha feel.

It's a similar phenomenon to the effect of the turn in Dramaha, yeah. During half the rounds in this game, your hole hand won't be in its final state, and that means getting through each of those rounds is somewhat more valuable than in straight Hold'em or Omaha.

But of course, that means it's also important not to get caught up with all the random second-best hands you'll catch. This game will feed you a lot of duds, and if you play it, you'll probably see legions of Hold'em players stacking off with those duds.

It doesn't sound like a terrible game. Maybe I'll call it sometime at the circus table.

 

[detroitdad]

It's a similar phenomenon to the effect of the turn in Dramaha, yeah. During half the rounds in this game, your hole hand won't be in its final state, and that means getting through each of those rounds is somewhat more valuable than in straight Hold'em or Omaha.

But of course, that means it's also important not to get caught up with all the random second-best hands you'll catch. This game will feed you a lot of duds, and if you play it, you'll probably see legions of Hold'em players stacking off with those duds.

It doesn't sound like a terrible game. Maybe I'll call it sometime at the circus table.

I agree. Nobody in my cash group is Hold'em only players. So everyone should be able to adjust pretty quickly

 

[DrStrange]

I don't see a great way for a TAG approach to this game to succeed vs loose aggressive players. The wildest LAG players are going to drive off the rest of the table before the fourth card fills the players' hand(s). Table selection will matter a lot - I would be looking for loose, passive players.

An Omaha hand is six holdem hands with a significant degree of correlation. Preflop, a player has one two card hand. The flop brings an extra card, creating three hands (XY, XZ, YZ) The turn doubles the number of potential hands. This is going to make a lot of players legitimately want to pay to see a flop/river because their hands develop much of their power later in the hand.

As noted by others, the hand values will be greater than holdem but less than Omaha. I think the values will run closer to hold'em than Omaha.

The LAG style is going to run over the table in a big bet format. Sure, the TAGs can effectively play the top one percent of starting hands - QQ+ and AJs+ but even there they will be facing a lot of variance. I wonder if we will come to find that a pot-pot-pot-evaluate line will not turn out to be profitable. More profitable for the TAGs being selective preflop, while the LAGs get most of the hands.

The players using a nut peddling approach are toast. Calling stations might be curiously effective if they can accept the variation.

Variance is going to be through the roof in this game. Getting close to half the value of the hand after the turn bet means a lot of money gets bet not knowing what hand you have. I guess skill will still prove possible, but it is the skilled LAGs that bring home the bacon.

DrStrange

 

[Jimulacrum]

Getting close to half the value of the hand after the turn bet means a lot of money gets bet not knowing what hand you have.

I'm looking back over the OP, and it's actually not clear when all of the cards arrive. I interpreted it this way at first:

Preflop: 2 hole cards
Flop: 1 hole card + 3 board cards
Turn: 1 hole card + 1 board card
River: 1 board card

But now I can see that it could go this way too:

Preflop: 2 hole cards
Flop: 3 board cards
Turn: 1 hole card + 1 board card
River: 1 hole card + 1 board card

I think that the first option would be a better overall game.

 

[detroitdad]

I also interpreted it as Option 1

 

[Forty4]

I read it as option 2

Actually interpretation is flop then hole card betting. Turn board, hole card betting and go into river as Omaha.

 

[Lemonzest]

I am just now starting to play PLO so this is wild to me. PLO seems to be very hard to put your opponent on a hand. This game is just gambling (which is still fun).

 

[Jimulacrum]

I am just now starting to play PLO so this is wild to me. PLO seems to be very hard to put your opponent on a hand. This game is just gambling (which is still fun).

PLO is less about putting your opponent on a specific hand than it is about curating your own hands so that you have strong equity against strong ranges. Hand reading does come into play, but it's not a key feature of the game like it is in NLHE.

 

[Lemonzest]

PLO is less about putting your opponent on a specific hand than it is about curating your own hands so that you have strong equity against strong ranges. Hand reading does come into play, but it's not a key feature of the game like it is in NLHE.

makes sense. PLO is enough madness for me at the minute

 

[detroitdad]

makes sense. PLO is enough madness for me at the minute

You probably play 4 card PLO? You should try 5 card PLO with two boards! now were talking !

 

[Lemonzest]

You probably play 4 card PLO? You should try 5 card PLO with two boards! now were talking !

Jeez. That is crazy.

My group only very recently started to mix in some PLO. We pick 1 guy and then every time pass the deck dealing gets around to him we play 1 hand of PLO. Still mostly NLHE but the PLO hands are always mayhem and result in the massive pots.

 

[detroitdad]

Jeez. That is crazy.

My group only very recently started to mix in some PLO. We pick 1 guy and then every time pass the deck dealing gets around to him we play 1 hand of PLO. Still mostly NLHE but the PLO hands are always mayhem and result in the massive pots.

IMO you really should play an orbit of it. Its hard to get in rhythm, or even learn a new game if your only playing it once an orbit. Now I'm Jonesing for some Double Board PLO!

 

[timinater]

Wow, hurt to not be tagged in the OP.

 

[detroitdad]

Wow, hurt to not be tagged in the OP.

Play better

 

[DoubleEagle]

Not a game I would ever want to play. I'm a nit.

 

[abby99]

Jeez. That is crazy.

My group only very recently started to mix in some PLO. We pick 1 guy and then every time pass the deck dealing gets around to him we play 1 hand of PLO. Still mostly NLHE but the PLO hands are always mayhem and result in the massive pots.

Do I understand correctly that the same person is the button for every PLO hand that is played? The button is a very powerful position in PLO.

 

[Lemonzest]

IMO you really should play an orbit of it. Its hard to get in rhythm, or even learn a new game if your only playing it once an orbit. Now I'm Jonesing for some Double Board PLO!

I hear that but this group has been playing NLHE for over 10 years and they don't adapt to change easily. I am honestly amazed we somehow managed to get 1 round of PLO in. I am happy with the 1 round and maybe down the road we can expand it !

 

[Lemonzest]

Do I understand correctly that the same person is the button for every PLO hand that is played? The button is a very powerful position in PLO.

Yeah this is true. It crossed my mind last time but honestly everyone is so clueless at the game that it doesn't factor in yet. There is no bluffing or anything yet. People are just trying to make hands and learn how it works.

 

[Kain8]

@timinater How many times have we played mixed games have we played at your house? Yeah, that's what I thought

 

[Jimulacrum]

I personally think it's just a way to destroy any edge a player has skill wise so Pokerstars can get that sweet, sweet, rake from uneducated micro players.

This is a curious but very prevalent attitude about new and unusual poker variants. The more a game varies from NLHE, the more players seem to think skill doesn't matter as much. This is pretty much the opposite of the truth.

Skill is extremely important in these games, no matter how wild they may seem. It's just that it's general poker skill you need to use, growing into a viable strategy for the new game, rather the NLHE-specific strategies you've learned over the years. Even basic NLHE advice that seems like it should hold up across games—like "Get your money in the middle with the best hand"—can sometimes trap you more than help you.

Every new variant that gets popular offers skilled players a massive potential advantage against neophytes who can't adapt as quickly. It's often a way better deal for those skilled players than trying to grind out big blinds at NLHE against a bunch of guys who have been studying the game for 10 years.

 

[detroitdad]

This is a curious but very prevalent attitude about new and unusual poker variants. The more a game varies from NLHE, the more players seem to think skill doesn't matter as much. This is pretty much the opposite of the truth.

Skill is extremely important in these games, no matter how wild they may seem. It's just that it's general poker skill you need to use, growing into a viable strategy for the new game, rather the NLHE-specific strategies you've learned over the years. Even basic NLHE advice that seems like it should hold up across games—like "Get your money in the middle with the best hand"—can sometimes trap you more than help you.

Every new variant that gets popular offers skilled players a massive potential advantage against neophytes who can't adapt as quickly. It's often a way better deal for those skilled players than trying to grind out big blinds at NLHE against a bunch of guys who have been studying the game for 10 years.

I'm trying to "double like" this but it won't let me.

 

[BGinGA]

Sounds like a lot more luck-based game than either NLHE or PLO. @Jimulacrum and @DrStrange both nailed the preliminary analysis above, imo.

Not a game I would ever want to play. I'm a nit.

I am not a nit, but I'm not a fan of high variance, either. This game seems full of it, for the reasons stated below:

Variance is going to be through the roof in this game. Getting close to half the value of the hand after the turn bet means a lot of money gets bet not knowing what hand you have.

That's a little too close to pure-chance gambling for my liking.

I think it would be better played as Fusion Hi/Lo.

 

[detroitdad]

I think it would be better played as Fusion Hi/Lo

Aren't most games improved by changing it to Hi/Lo?

 

[Kain8]

Aren't most games improved by changing it to Hi/Lo?

Damn straight.

 

[detroitdad]

Damn straight.

A couple of guys love playing Cinci. Only way I'll play that bullshit is if its Hi/Lo (same with 3-2-1).

 

[Jimulacrum]

Yeah, going high/low can make almost any game better. An excellent example of this is Super Hold'em.

Ever played a few orbits of plain ol' Super Hold'em? I have. It's excruciating. The fact that you can use all three cards throws everyone's Hold'em sense of hand values right out the window. I watched a table of circus game fiends go full nit playing SHE.

Make it high/low, though, and it's a different story. There is a distinct, meaningful hierarchy of the best low hands that makes people a lot more comfortable moving chips around, with the high hand acting as more of a secondary consideration (which it shouldn't be, BTW, but that's a whole other strat thread).

 

[Jimulacrum]

A couple of guys love playing Cinci. Only way I'll play that bullshit is if its Hi/Lo (same with 3-2-1).

Cincinnati is like Omaha, but you can play any number of your 4 hole cards, right?