OmaJack - What's Your Problem With It? (4 Viewers)

[chippitydoodah]

Players are dealt five cards. Betting and board run out is the same as Omaha with a flop, a turn and a river. You must use the two cards from your hand that make the best possible Omaha hand . The three remaining cards in your hand are used to make your Blackjack hand. Pot is split between the winning Omaha hand and the best blackjack hand providing the Blackjack hand didn't bust. I like playing it and would love to know who else does. I'd also like to know who doesn't like it and why?

 

[JMC9389]

The same reason I don't like derailment. You can play perfectly and lose half the pot or more on the last street.

 

[chippitydoodah]

Everyone except @JMC9389 and @dpeks13

 

[bernielomax]

Someone called this in a game last year and half the table had a heart attack.

No problems here.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Sounds kinda cool, but I think I'd prefer it as a Dramaha variant.

 

[ThinkingFold]

Have never played. Definitely calling this in my next game.

 

[ekricket]

. The three remaining cards are used

This part. You have no choice for half the pot

To clarify, I have no problem playing the game. That’s just the part I dislike.

 

[upNdown]

This part. You have no choice for half the pot

To clarify, I have no problem playing the game. That’s just the part I dislike.

So we’re talking about the 3 remaining board cards? Those are the ones that make up your blackjack hand? The unused two cards in your hand don’t come into play?

 

[chippitydoodah]

So we’re talking about the 3 remaining board cards? Those are the ones that make up your blackjack hand? The unused two cards in your hand don’t come into play?

Remaining 3 cards in your hand are your blackjack hand

 

[upNdown]

Remaining 3 cards in your hand are your blackjack hand

Okay then. I’m with @ekricket

This part. You have no choice for half the pot

To clarify, I have no problem playing the game. That’s just the part I dislike.

 

[RocAFella1]

You can play perfectly and lose half the pot or more on the last street.

Can't that be said about any if not most games? There's definitely winning and losing derailment players in my game and it isn't just the variance.

 

[FestiveKnight]

@ekricket @upNdown do yall like sohe? Dramaha? Scarney?

 

[upNdown]

@ekricket @upNdown do yall like sohe? Dramaha? Scarney?

Love SOHE, dramaha is fun but not my favorite, never played scarney.

 

[BarrieJ3]

I have no issue with it, fine to play it.

That being said, it is a weaker poker mechanism.

There is the randomness factor - similar to derailment. There are some key differences between the two: derailment you have much more information, and you’re able to ascertain and judge your strength and position on 3 boards, knowing where you are pre river (how do I feel if top board goes away, middle, bottom, 2, or all 3 stay).

For something like Omajack, unless you are either nutted pre river OR have an immensely strong hand that should remain strong regardless (aces suited + X with either flush coming in giving you 21 or close), then the river very much randomizes everyone’s strength.

That aspect is not at all similar to detrailment and I can’t think of other mechanics that are similar, unless someone applies locust post river card - which again, no one would play.

As a mechanism, it is not borne of or related to poker. It also feels much more akin to side bets or running bets - ie $5 for red boards, $10 for X on the river where everyone has a number, etc.

Scarney, high pips, low pips, 0 games, etc. are building to a defined up or down - your 21s, baccs, etc. are all bringing in a mechanism that isn’t a poker variant, but just that - an unnatural to poker mechanism.

Is it bad? Is it good? Up to the masses.

Personally I think it can be fun to switch things up once or twice, and I’m happy to play any game called (except shuffle mechanism), but I do think it’s obvious how from a game building operations and mechanics perspective your omajacks, baccs, etc. are simply weaker/worse.

I fully believe if you took non poker playing board gamers and game architects, let them learn and play out the variations, they would mostly come to the same conclusion.

 

[Rieguy]

Don't let @ekricket fool you. He is the one who called and introduced me to this wonderful game. Only charged me $100 for the lesson!

 

[DrStrange]

Omajack rewards a little different sort of thinking. A thinking player can look at their hand preflop and judge their prospects pretty accurately.
This variant rewards skill more than most forms of poker.

Some hands are obvious dogs. A few are 100% certain to bust. Others might not bust but can't make a playable blackjack hand. More have obscure ways to make 19+. The better/best hands have clear paths to scoops. Fold the crap, play the good press with the best. Easy-peasy.

But most players don't do this. They don't seriously think about "what if?" until the flop or even the turn. And then they whine about unlucky rivers crippling the hand. As if dynamic rivers don't have in every game.

Example: this is playable, some might raise. Clear path to nuts both ways but not often at the same time. But . . . . it can prove treacherous unimproved prior to the river. lets say the board is < > At the moment, Hero has 21 and an almost sure losing pair of fives on the Omaha side. There are a lot of rivers that destroy Hero's hand. And he isn't scooping very often.

In a big bet game, I would be looking for a fold a lot of times. Putting money in on a one-way hand requires high degrees of assurance. Many people don't see it this way and end up unhappy on a bad river or when quartered.

I understand people don't enjoy this about Omajack. New ways of thinking are hard. Worse when not sober or tired or sleepy. Lots of players in my circle claim they don't know what they have even after the turn. They have HOPE. They hope for a lucky river or a safe river and miss way too often.

One valid critique is Omajack played in a big bet format will stack weaker players pretty easily. Hosts might find a higher degree of acceptance playing limit so people can learn their lessons for a less painful price.

I enjoy it. So do the rest of the players in my weekly mixed game. The hold'em players would cash out and go home -=- DrStrange

 

[WedgeRock]

The same reason I don't like derailment. You can play perfectly and lose half the pot or more on the last street.

How is this different from any other split pot game? Even less circus-y games like O8 and Stud8.

 

[krafticus]

The same reason I don't like derailment. You can play perfectly and lose half the pot or more on the last street.

I mean, you’ve never lost a poker hand in hold ‘em or Omaha that was played perfectly only to see the river just destroy your rectal area? ;-)

 

[WedgeRock]

So we’re talking about the 3 remaining board cards? Those are the ones that make up your blackjack hand? The unused two cards in your hand don’t come into play?

RIF.

Players are dealt five cards. ... The three remaining cards in your hand (emphasis added) are used to make your Blackjack hand.

 

[chippitydoodah]

RIF.

I did go back and add that in. I probably should have added an asterisk or something

 

[chippitydoodah]

I have no issue with it, fine to play it.

That being said, it is a weaker poker mechanism.

There is the randomness factor - similar to derailment. There are some key differences between the two: derailment you have much more information, and you’re able to ascertain and judge your strength and position on 3 boards, knowing where you are pre river (how do I feel if top board goes away, middle, bottom, 2, or all 3 stay).

For something like Omajack, unless you are either nutted pre river OR have an immensely strong hand that should remain strong regardless (aces suited + X with either flush coming in giving you 21 or close), then the river very much randomizes everyone’s strength.

That aspect is not at all similar to detrailment and I can’t think of other mechanics that are similar, unless someone applies locust post river card - which again, no one would play.

As a mechanism, it is not borne of or related to poker. It also feels much more akin to side bets or running bets - ie $5 for red boards, $10 for X on the river where everyone has a number, etc.

Scarney, high pips, low pips, 0 games, etc. are building to a defined up or down - your 21s, baccs, etc. are all bringing in a mechanism that isn’t a poker variant, but just that - an unnatural to poker mechanism.

Is it bad? Is it good? Up to the masses.

Personally I think it can be fun to switch things up once or twice, and I’m happy to play any game called (except shuffle mechanism), but I do think it’s obvious how from a game building operations and mechanics perspective your omajacks, baccs, etc. are simply weaker/worse.

I fully believe if you took non poker playing board gamers and game architects, let them learn and play out the variations, they would mostly come to the same conclusion.

So you're saying this mechanism isn't the same as other mechanisms so when you factor in the mechanism it's the mechanism that's the mechanism not the mechanism.

 

[RocAFella1]

Coming soon to a meetup near you:
Crazy Pineapple OmaJack

 

[upNdown]

RIF.

Pretty sure that wasn’t included in the first post. It’s been edited. Or maybe I missed it.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Some hands are obvious dogs. A few are 100% certain to bust. Others might not bust but can't make a playable blackjack hand. More have obscure ways to make 19+. The better/best hands have clear paths to scoops. Fold the crap, play the good press with the best. Easy-peasy.

I agree with your entire post.

Again, I’m happy to play anything. All poker good poker. I just personally highly prefer all other variants over this - specific to your explanation (like maybe an 6.5/10 compared to 9.5/10, all poker fun).

I get to play very rarely. Poker is for fun, entertainment, etc. for me. For me, that pretty much amounts to gambling. I’m more than happy to toss in bunch of money chasing a one outer so that I can get out the money gun and shoot fake bills while playing “are you not entertained” over the speakers.

I don’t expect or want everyone to play bad poker and gambol. But it certainly is a bore when a) everyone’s tight or b) we’re calling games that dramatically punish poorer starting hands so we’re 2-3 handed going to flops.

Similarly why I favor other variants over dra2mha.

Casino? If I played weekly with the same people for 3 years? Private game with people I don’t know? Sure, and then I’m also partially sober and looking to make money.

Everyone’s mileage may vary, and I doubt this applies to your game, but when I walk into those rooms (casino, and sadly enough meetups too), those type of tables with a couple people who enjoy and call those games look downright miserable.

 

[Knoxymoron]

This sounds interesting to me and I'd like to try it but can someone concede the Omaha pot and just aim for the best blackjack hand? I assume not with the wording you provided.

I do see the following scenario happening often with a couple guys in my group so what would the recommended resolution be?
Player A shows King high for the Omaha pot and 21 for the BJ pot. K high isn't good enough to win so another player is declared the winner for it. Player A's 21 is good for the BJ pot but then someone notices that they they didn't use the best two cards for the Omaha hand and they actually should have won the Omaha pot but not the blackjack pot. Would Player A now be declared the winner of the Omaha pot and not the BJ pot or is it too late at that point?

 

[BarrieJ3]

So you're saying this mechanism isn't the same as other mechanisms so when you factor in the mechanism it's the mechanism that's the mechanism not the mechanism.


View attachment 1660498

You asked a question, gave a detailed answer.

I’m sorry, I should let the PCF membership go back and forth over “it’s a random river” and “all rivers are random”.

The differences between a variant and a mechanism is important, since they can be judged independently.

If you can’t think and comprehend beyond that, don’t ask the f*cking question.

 

[quintooo]

Can't that be said about any if not most games? There's definitely winning and losing derailment players in my game and it isn't just the variance.

agree. i didn't realize people hated derailment until recently.

isn't all of poker essentially you can play perfectly and the river kills you??

 

[RocAFella1]

This sounds interesting to me and I'd like to try it but can someone concede the Omaha pot and just aim for the best blackjack hand? I assume not with the wording you provided.

I do see the following scenario happening often with a couple guys in my group so what would the recommended resolution be?
Player A shows King high for the Omaha pot and 21 for the BJ pot. K high isn't good enough to win so another player is declared the winner for it. Player A's 21 is good for the BJ pot but then someone notices that they they didn't use the best two cards for the Omaha hand and they actually should have won the Omaha pot but not the blackjack pot. Would Player A now be declared the winner of the Omaha pot and not the BJ pot or is it too late at that point?

There is no declare, cards speak and best Omaha hand is formed using 2 cards with remaining 3 cards forming Blackjack hand.

 

[Jimulacrum]

This part. You have no choice for half the pot

By this standard, Texas Hold'em, Double Board Omaha, 7 Card Stud, Omaha 8, and basically all other straight dealt games (i.e., no draw or hand-splitting) leave you with no choice for one half or both halves of the pot. You just get what you get.

Omajack is no different in this regard. Even the Omaha side of the hand leaves you no choice. Again, you get what you get.

The skill element in the vast majority of poker games is using betting to squeeze advantage from "what you get."

 

[chippitydoodah]

This sounds interesting to me and I'd like to try it but can someone concede the Omaha pot and just aim for the best blackjack hand? I assume not with the wording you provided.

I do see the following scenario happening often with a couple guys in my group so what would the recommended resolution be?
Player A shows King high for the Omaha pot and 21 for the BJ pot. K high isn't good enough to win so another player is declared the winner for it. Player A's 21 is good for the BJ pot but then someone notices that they they didn't use the best two cards for the Omaha hand and they actually should have won the Omaha pot but not the blackjack pot. Would Player A now be declared the winner of the Omaha pot and not the BJ pot or is it too late at that point?

Cards talk. Must make the best (highest) Omaha hand possible. Remaining 3 hole cards are what's left for blackjack.