Limit holdem, but with a super-raise (10 big bets) on river. Help!

[Blue Lagoon]

Hello,

I play mostly limit holdem. I just find a live game with special rules:

It's 10 handed max.
it's a normal limit holdem poker $1-$2 (blinds: $0.5-$1), but on the river, any player can make normal bets and raises ($2), or choose to "super-bet" or "super-raise" ($20).

If a player choose to super-bet or super-raise, any other player who want to re-raise, must super-reraise (calling $20 + $20 more).

There is a maximum number of super-raise: the number of players in the hand on the river (2 players on the river, only 1 super-bet and 1 super-raise available. After that you can just call).

Do you know how to adapt to this game?

Specifically:
-Do you play more hands (more suited connectors to make a big hand)
-Do you have to play looser, chasing more (better implied odds)
-Or tighter (because the blinds are small in front of future bets (theory of poker, sklansky)
-Do you semi-bluff less?

- Is a standard player (too loose and too passive, but let's say not a total fish), a better player in this game, or worse?

Any thoughts appreciated,
Thank you

[2461Badugi]

Do people call the super-raise with marginal hands? If they do it's just a big value-betting opportunity; you'll want to play a little farther with big implied-odds hands like suited connectors, and peel more on the flop with missed pocket pairs.

If not, I would think a good handreader could play almost anything and use the super-raise to pick up pots when no one else is particularly strong.

[DeathDonkey]

I think the game isn't a very good one from a theoretical standpoint because the river action is basically the only action and its a boring game when there is only one street of action. That said, I think your first two conclusions are correct - more implied odds hands and play less big cards that tend to make one pair (so maybe you don't play more hands, just different ones). A hand like QTo would be totally unplayable IMO.

Also, against decent players you would have a lot of profitable bluffing spots on the river, enough that you might call a turn bet with rags if a draw is present hoping it comes in and you can represent it on the river. This play would be foolish in limit and sort of dumb in NL depending on the size of the turn bet and stack size but in a game like this it would be correct much more frequently. I think a loose passive player would be even worse in this game because they tend to make exactly the wrong type of hands on the end, one or two pair hands that they "pay off" with but aren't strong enough to value bet fearlessly, and their lack of understanding of theory will cause them to make some truly awful river calls.

-DeathDonkey

[Blue Lagoon]

I never play it until now.
I was just wondering how to think theoretically about this game before playing at it.

Do you think some concepts of pot- or no-limit hold'em can be useful, because the super-raise is often as large as the pot?

Do you agree: we are looking for strong to very strong hands. (trips and more)

[Blue Lagoon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the game isn't a very good one from a theoretical standpoint because the river action is basically the only action and its a boring game when there is only one street of action. That said, I think your first two conclusions are correct - more implied odds hands and play less big cards that tend to make one pair (so maybe you don't play more hands, just different ones). A hand like QTo would be totally unplayable IMO.

Also, against decent players you would have a lot of profitable bluffing spots on the river, enough that you might call a turn bet with rags if a draw is present hoping it comes in and you can represent it on the river. This play would be foolish in limit and sort of dumb in NL depending on the size of the turn bet and stack size but in a game like this it would be correct much more frequently. I think a loose passive player would be even worse in this game because they tend to make exactly the wrong type of hands on the end, one or two pair hands that they "pay off" with but aren't strong enough to value bet fearlessly, and their lack of understanding of theory will cause them to make some truly awful river calls.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think we can slowplay more, to induce a call on the river.
I think so because it must be really difficult to protect your hand with a bet, so at least you try to trap your opponents.

?

[DeathDonkey]

I think slowplaying would be worse in this game because your decent opponents are more often going to have draws and fold on the river instead of paying you off, and the fish need to have something in the pot to justify calling your monster bet on the end. On the other hand, inducing bluffs might go up in value from all those missed draws.

-DeathDonkey

[Blue Lagoon]

Thank you for your help.
It's a good starting point; now I think some experience is needed to size the playing styles of the players.

I wonder if any No Limit book could be of any help?

[StellarWind]

Flop play becomes different. Middle/bottom pair becomes a really bad drawing hand because two pair and trips are going to be the trap hands that payoff on the river but never collect the big score.

Quality gutshots become wonderful hands to chase with even in small pots especially if they aren't going to be obvious when they hit. Backdoor flush draws also gain in value.

In short you need to think more like a big bet player and draw to monsters instead of likely winners. Out quality becomes a much bigger deal.

[jfk]

Suited aces would be very valuable. No one would ever be able to price you off of a hand but may price themselves into a call if you hit at the river. In fact, you'd look to really jam on the cheaper streets to build just that sort of scenario.

Pairs would be valuable for set value primarily though they'd have to be played in a deceptive way.

Connectors would be go up in value. The suitedness would still be important, though the nut hand, straight making characteristic would be primary. You may not be able to call some river bets with small flushes.

I'd think you'd need to play big pairs passively/slowly on the cheaper streets due to the implied odds you'd lay. Big, unsited cards, AJ, KQ, etc. would go way down in value.

This is a game structure which puts a premium on implied odds. Hang around the pot with those hands.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
You may not be able to call some river bets with small flushes.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's 10 BB, not your deep stack, and usually you get nearly 2-1. Unless something is seriously wrong with the board I think you should just assume a made two-card flush is good and at least call the big river bet.

The slowplay-and-pounce aspect of the big river bet means that a hand which suddenly pops up on the river will often be a set, straight, two-pair, or whatever that was already made on the flop or turn. You can't assume that the new card has anything to do with the action. This increases the pressure not to believe in flush-over-flush.

[ QUOTE ]
Pairs would be valuable for set value primarily though they'd have to be played in a deceptive way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think sets are primarily payoff hands in this game, valuable but easy to overrate. Competent players are frequently not going to payoff the whole way on a set with just one pair or something. But when you get cracked you are going to call everytime unless there are four parts of a pat hand on the board. The cracks are going to be more frequent than usual because the flush and straight draws will chase the whole way beginning with many more drawing hands seeing the flop.