Double-flop Hold 'em

[wadea]

Tell me what you think about this new twist on Texas Hold 'em I thought of last night. It'll play basically like Texas Hold 'em, except that after the first betting round two flops will be dealt instead of one. The remaining players will then vote on which flop to continue playing and the hand will proceed using the popular flop. In the event of a tied vote, the last person to have folded will select the flop. The method for voting is still up for discussion. Here are some of my thoughts:

1. Obviously the voting process adds a new level of hand reading/bluffing, etc. to the game.

2. Voting is a problem when played heads-up, so at that point the game reverts to standard Tex Hold 'em rules.

3. Having seen the "dead" board, you will have slightly more information about the cards that are out.

4. I guess this game is a little bit similar to Pineapple games and will probably attract the same type of player.

5. The tied vote could also be settled by dealing each board another "dead" card, with the highest dead card continuing.

6. This will obviously be added to the Big Game rotation by the end of the year.

What are your initial impressions of this game?
How can this game be improved?
How do you adjust your play for this game?

[SolidFish]

I think thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. There are so many retarded things about this game I dont know where to begin... Dont quit your day job.

[LimpyMcGee]

You could use a little sensitivity training.

[josh_x]

I like the idea of the voting, you should have to vote in order, would make some interesting situations.

[rufus]

Well, there's the vote by putting bets in the pot option:
Players can bet for either pot, and, in case of a tie, it's a split pot.

[capone0]

On UB, the website used to have a similar game. Difference is, is there is no voting and it's a split pot game where I guess you can win both pots if possible.

[FRivers]

I think a similar game was played at the Aviation Club, Paris, where they played on both boards. Sounds like this is the game UB had where the pot was either split between the winners of each board, or scooped if a player won both.

[Louie Landale]

Letting an uninvolved player make the crucial decision is rediculous. The mechanics of voting look very difficult; declare verbally according to position? Also, many folks who miss the flop can deliberately affect the outcome in their friends favor by voting for their flop.

You could just let there be two boards to the end; winner is the one with the highest ranking hand overall. You could have the nut straight on one board and lose to the full house from the other. I played in such a game featuring 3 boards. Folks figured out quickly that winning hands were almost always top full house; thus folks never played little cards.

You could also have one pot for each flop but that gets hard to manage.

You could also just play it split pot; best hand on each flop wins half the pot. As in other split games, push hard hands that can win both pots or are big favorites in one pot. Suited connectors go way down in value since you will usually be contesting only one pot.

- Louie

[flipdeadshot22]

I would never bring my money to a table where this was being played. Horrendous idea.

[soko]

[ QUOTE ]
I would never bring my money to a table where this was being played. Horrendous idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

overstatement, any version of poker can be profitable with the right kind of opponents