Niche medium variance games (1 Viewer)

[Coyote]

@DrStrange
My crew would like some variety over Texas Hold'em, but they (and I) backed down when Bloody Omaha showed her teeth.
One variant that is commanding general acclaim here (regardless of name) is the one where you are dealt 3 hole cards and discard one upon seeing the flop, before betting on it.
From then on, the two hole cards are compulsory to use (so it basically starts as Pineapple pre-flop, and continues as half-Omaha post flop).

I would suggest another one, with 3 fully useable hole cards, and just a 3 card board (single card flop, plus turn plus river).
What is the math behind that, possibly erroneous, idea?
Coyote, LLM (obviously not MS)

 

[inca911]

Here is a progression that I recommend to introduce new games. Stick with the clear boxes initially, and don’t play the red games at the bottom. Not sure about the three card board, but if it’s fun then do it!

 

[Mojo1312]

@DrStrange

One variant that is commanding general acclaim here is (regardless of name) is the one where you are dealt 3 hole cards and discard one upon seeing the flop, before betting on it.

^^ Crazy Pineapple.

Oklahoma is similar to Omaha, except players are dealt three hole cards. Like Omaha, players must use two hole cards when making their hand.

You may also want to page Abby.

 

[DrStrange]

The hands are going to be markedly better than in hold'em, but not quite like Omaha hands. Let me say that wise players will fold "two card" hands preflop - Ie . Better hands will have all three cards working together somehow. Set mining big pairs still works.

One pair hands are a lot more dangerous. Still acceptable with the shortest of stacks. Over pair hands often turn into traps.

Nut peddling works! When the bets get big, hero needs to have a B I G hand - much better than a go-to-war hold'em hand. However, you are never up against the kinds of monster draws you see in Omaha.

On a different thread - - - - limit or spread limit betting makes the transition to non-hold'em games smoother. Much less expensive to learn how to play. Plus the betting structure lets the weaker players have a chance.

Remember the goal is to have fun. And that means the weaker players are having a good time while they lose money -=- DrStrange

 

[Coyote]

Many thanks @ the Good Doctor!(y) :thumbsup:
Pageing also @abby99
At the end of the day, have we found two variants in the middle between TxHE and Omaha, variance-wise?

 

[glom]

Play the higher variance games and lower the stakes.

 

[Coyote]

Play the higher variance games and lower the stakes.

No way! It's about people with already limited entertainment money (seeing no point in the roulette and the like) wishing to play basically competitve poker, with some variety (not too much variance), if possible.

 

[abby99]

@DrStrange
My crew would like some variety over Texas Hold'em, but they (and I) backed down when Bloody Omaha showed her teeth.
One variant that is commanding general acclaim here (regardless of name) is the one where you are dealt 3 hole cards and discard one upon seeing the flop, before betting on it.
From then on, the two hole cards are compulsory to use (so it basically starts as Pineapple pre-flop, and continues as half-Omaha post flop).

I would suggest another one, with 3 fully useable hole cards, and just a 3 card board (single card flop, plus turn plus river).
What is the math behind that, possibly erroneous, idea?
Coyote, LLM (obviously not MS)

Although I'm not aware of the exact games you described, I did find some with similar features.

In Double Hold'em, each player is dealt three down cards. After the flop and before the post-flop round of betting, players arrange their hole cards in a triangle (one above, two below). The top card is known as the point card. The final hand is the best five of the point card, one of the two lower cards, and the five community cards. This is similar to Lazy Pineapple except that the point card must be one of the two hole cards when considering the best five of seven cards.

Chowaha is a variant of 3-2-1 where each player has two down cards and must play both, along with three cards from a contiguous row on the board.

In Super Hold'em, players may use any or all (or even none) of their three hole cards along with a normal 5-card board.

SHESHE is a combination of Hold'em and Super Hold'em where players receive five down cards and separate them into a 2-card hand (Hold'em) and a 3-card hand (Super Hold'em) pre-flop, similar to SOHE.

Cincinnati has a 4-card board and four down cards. I'm not aware of any flop games with a 3-card board or with a total of only six cards available to each player.

I like @inca911's chart for introducing new games.

Finally, I'm a fan of adjusting the stakes and buy-ins to the amount of funds that players are comfortable with while still allowing for competitive play or what some call "real poker" (starting with deep stacks).

 

[glom]

No way! It's about people with already limited entertainment money (seeing no point in the roulette and the like) wishing to play basically competitve poker, with some variety (not too much variance), if possible.

I can’t imagine how most of the games mentioned in this thread are going to be lower variance than plo.

What stakes are you playing now?

 

[Coyote]

@glom
Mostlly .20/.40 (Euro cents) below which it gets ridiculously painless, up to .50/.50 above which it gets too painful for most people here.
The point of this thread has been to be told if the variants described are a little bit lower-variance than Omaha

At any rate, to detect a game where you could probably call with an under-full or a K-high flush (still risky in TxHE, totally forbidden in PLO).

 

[DrStrange]

Normally I don't restate the same thought in several posts in the same thread. In this case, I will make an exception.

If the goal is to limit the effects of natural variation as a home game explores new poker games, there is more than one way to go about it. Game selection is absolutely one of the factors that drives variance. Not only the nature of the game but also the familiarity of the players. The less familiar the game, the more the natural variance.

Because the better players catch on faster and are more likely to have a wider range of prior experience, this variance is not randomly distributed. The swings in a game with a new form of poker being played tend to be wider AND such variance will result in the transfer of funds from the weaker players to stronger ones. No surprise that the weaker players don't like this feature, even if hold'em is getting stale.

Yes, a host should be mindful of this and select new games with care. However there are other tools available to a host that also will reduce the absolute monetary value of variance. I am thinking of things like the size of the blinds, betting structure and buy-in size.

Lowering the blinds will reduce variance, though not by as much as might be expected. Say you drop a $0.25/$0.50 game to $0.05/$0.10 while leaving the buy-in the same. Now the game is deeper, favoring the better player. Also you often find people open the betting the same no matter the blind. Opening raise of $1.50 in a $0.25/$0.50 might not change much even though the blinds are 5x smaller. If that is the case, then lowering the blinds will not matter much at all.

On the other hand, lowering the buy-in limits will physically force a reduction in the absolute value of variation. Taking a $0.25/$0.50 game with a $100 buy-in and capping the buy-in at $25 for "Omaha night" will ensure the weaker players get four shots at glory rather than one. Yes, they are still likely to go bust but at least they get a lot of play for their $100.

Changing the betting structure from no limit / pot limit to fixed limit / spread limit { only if the spread is low } will also limit variance. It also protects new players from disasters when they don't understand the rules or the changed relative values of hands. I know that the players in many games love the allure of going all-in. Or of getting to bet POT, bitches! But making a $0.50 / $4.00 cap on betting in a $0.25/$0.50 game means it is harder to get stacked. Limiting the betting also increases the effect of luck relative to skill, giving the weakest players a better chance to come out a winner on mixed games night.

It is not an accident that my mixed game nights are always spread limit vs big bet poker. I learned hard lessons years ago when the games started breaking ninety minutes into the session as the rapid losses drove the losing players home before nine o'clock.

I encourage the original poster to consider lower buy-in limits and using small bet poker betting rules as another way to make the 'waters safe' for the weaker players.

It is all about the fun and it isn't fun to go broke before the sun sets -=- DrStrange

PS unmentioned but also a possibility is to change to a tournament structure from a cash game structure. Depends on the crew, but an Omaha tournament or a mixed games event can be a fun / safe way to introduce new forms of poker. Of course, one of the bad players will stiff find a way to bust out of the event 15 minutes into the night. . . . .

 

[Jimulacrum]

Agree with the vast majority of DrStrange's remarks.

One thing that's worth keeping in mind is that complex poker variants aren't necessarily higher in variance just because they cause a lot of chips to fly around. Loosely, variance is how much you should expect your results to vary from your relative skill level against the field. It's a measure of how much chance plays a factor in the outcomes.

When the sharks in your game quickly develop a strategy for a new game and proceed to crush the rest of the field, that's not high variance. It's the dramatically better players winning by a landslide, with variance only rarely saving the weaker players. If variance were actually high, the high-skill players would find it difficult to win consistently, despite playing much better than the rest.

Ironically enough, NLHE is often a high-variance game because so many players are at or around the same skill level. Deal in 9 guys who are all about equally skilled, and the pattern of the results will resemble randomness, because it's more the cards deciding the outcomes than the small skill differences. It's the total opposite in games where better overall poker players will quickly find their advantages, while less studious players will struggle to learn the ropes. There will be a lot of variance among the lower-skill players, but around the whole table, chips will gravitate rapidly toward the higher-skill players.

 

[glom]

@glom
Mostlly .20/.40 (Euro cents) below which it gets ridiculously painless, up to .50/.50 above which it gets too painful for most people here.
The point of this thread has been to be told if the variants described are a little bit lower-variance than Omaha

At any rate, to detect a game where you could probably call with an under-full or a K-high flush (still risky in TxHE, totally forbidden in PLO).

What are your buy ins?

I have played in .05/.10 pot limit us$ games where the big winner went home with over $500 profit. You’d be surprised how fun it is to play high variance poker super deep.

 

[Coyote]

100 BB standard or half the big stack (eventual maximum).
There are no serious skill differences, so winners and losers aren't always the same. You can expect both some decent poker and some serious mistakes too, by practically everybody on that table.