Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

I've been wondering this forever. It seems an obvious game, but nobody lays it out. Any reason?

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

too strict a game. playing without an ace marks you as an idiot. Also the flop is too determinate - there's not much drawing

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

Yup - the hand values don't change enough as the hand progresses. A2 would stay the nuts roughly 50% of the time against any number of opponents.

It would be nit central.

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

That largely depends on if you count straights and flushes against against your hand, and whether you have to use both hole cards.


Either way though, i dont think it's necessarily worse because hands change less. If you want to avoid nits, just play 6max. It's really no different than O8, when you consider the overwhelmming strength of any A2. Except in O8, it's a lot easier to wait around for A2 combos because thye're so much more common than they would be in this. If you tried waiting for good aces in hold em lowball, you'd get killed by the blinds even in full ring.

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

[ QUOTE ]
That largely depends on if you count straights and flushes against against your hand, and whether you have to use both hole cards.


Either way though, i dont think it's necessarily worse because hands change less. If you want to avoid nits, just play 6max. It's really no different than O8, when you consider the overwhelmming strength of any A2. Except in O8, it's a lot easier to wait around for A2 combos because thye're so much more common than they would be in this. If you tried waiting for good aces in hold em lowball, you'd get killed by the blinds even in full ring.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can try it if you want, but trust me - it's going to be really dumb. You might as well deal out one card before the flop and play "mine's smaller than yours".

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yup - the hand values don't change enough as the hand progresses. A2 would stay the nuts roughly 50% of the time against any number of opponents.

It would be nit central.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you mean like O8?

Couldn't help myself, but really, the perceived ill-temper of Omaha players has little to do with people who are actually waiting around for good O8 hands. O8 has play, despite the fact that A2 is unquestionably the nut low draw, because of (1) boards where low doesn't make and (2) counterfeiting.

In HE 8/b you couldn't get a premium low hand like A23x, but you would certainly have people call all kinds of bets with A3 just hoping it's either good or spikes a deuce. Moreover, A3 more likely would BE good -- just as AA unimproved is actually a hand to be proud of in HE, but not in Omaha.

I believe UB spreads HE 8/b, yes?

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can try it if you want, but trust me - it's going to be really dumb. You might as well deal out one card before the flop and play "mine's smaller than yours".

[/ QUOTE ]

I have tried it.
Works fine in my opinion.

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

I love HE/8, though we usually play it hi/lo without the qualifier now. It's a good game. If players are too nitty then adjust your games, put a straddle on or do something...

I don't know why people beat up on this game so much, it plays just fine. I guess for some people anything other than NLHE (with exactly x/2x blinds) is "dumb."

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yup - the hand values don't change enough as the hand progresses. A2 would stay the nuts roughly 50% of the time against any number of opponents.

It would be nit central.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you mean like O8?

Couldn't help myself, but really, the perceived ill-temper of Omaha players has little to do with people who are actually waiting around for good O8 hands. O8 has play, despite the fact that A2 is unquestionably the nut low draw, because of (1) boards where low doesn't make and (2) counterfeiting.

In HE 8/b you couldn't get a premium low hand like A23x, but you would certainly have people call all kinds of bets with A3 just hoping it's either good or spikes a deuce. Moreover, A3 more likely would BE good -- just as AA unimproved is actually a hand to be proud of in HE, but not in Omaha.

I believe UB spreads HE 8/b, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

The split game might be better - never tried it. But just the low would be almost as silly as Omaha played A-5 low.

If you guys are all in such a lowball mood, shuffle up and deal some London lowball or KCL with a big ante. That'll keep you entertained [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

hello people, OP was asking about Lowball HE. That is a stupid game.

Some of you are arguing over hi-lo split, which is very different. the format known as crazy pineapple hi-lo is decent, because there are three initial cards to tempt people into playing. Furthermore, there's decent play involved due to the high.

But lowball HE is rubbish. abbadabba made an interesting point about a 2-7 version, which would be much more interesting. but i disagree with his comparison between a2 in omahahi-lo and lowball. the a2 is far more relevant in lowball - lowball has no qualifier, and there's no split with high. a2 in O8 turns to trash often enough, since low doesn't always get there, and splits with hi, so it is not such a great hand as in lowball.

but actually he's right about waiting for low aces. i exaggerated when i said you couldn't play without an ace. You'd have to form a position chart with the hands, but in full-ring EP you'd be an idiot to play without a2, a3, a4, or 23. Probably the only starters in this game are any 2 distint wheel cards.

there's far more play in hi-lo split, and crazy pineapple hi-lo is a decent game.

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

You could say that someone would be stupid to open in early position with less than a good ace (or a good two), but then, you could say the same of someone who opens in early position without a good ace or a big pair in NL.

And yet people do.

Because if you're only opening with good aces or twos in early position, it becomes extremely easy to play against you post flop. And if you know that people "know" you've got an ace or a two, suddenly they're quite exploitable.
It's not tough to think of situations where a lot more thought comes into play.

You also develop the same incentive to limp-raise (if not more so) with your good aces, just because you dont want to discourage action. There is probably a lot more emphasis on preflop action than in regular hold em, but it's not completely mindless. It's just different.

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

I'm well aware of the difference, but I thought assessing the playability of O8 would at least give us clues as to the playability of HELow. I still don't see much point to the low-only version, so I was suggesting another variant the OP might like.

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I love HE/8, though we usually play it hi/lo without the qualifier now. It's a good game. If players are too nitty then adjust your games, put a straddle on or do something...

I don't know why people beat up on this game so much, it plays just fine. I guess for some people anything other than NLHE (with exactly x/2x blinds) is "dumb."

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is NOT that it's not holdem. Plenty of things aren't holdem, and they play fine.

The issue is that it has the wrong structure for poker - too much emphasis on the first betting round. I can think of at least 15 lowball variations that would play better. Why not go play one of them? My personal favorite: NL 2-7 STRAW.

Re: Why is there no Lowball Texas Holdem?
 

Holdem high-low split (8 or better) makes more sense, though nothing great. The best hands there are AA-QQ, A2s-A6s (they don't all rank at this spot) A2-A5, AKs-ATs, JJ-TT, two cards five or less suited (e.g. 52s), AK-AJ, two cards five or less unsuited (though 53 and 54 - like AT and A6 - are near top 20%. A7-A9 are near top 33%, and the same goes to medium suited aces in most cases), 62s-63s, 22, KQs. The worst hands have one or two medium cards where the highest card is less than an ace.