Hi-low split games: why?

[Siegmund]

I don't quite know how to put this: I hate them, think they are a stupid complication of the game. I am trying to ask, sincerely, if they have some special redeeming quality that I just haven't yet grasped.

A lot of the runaway popularity of Texas Holdem, I think, comes from its simplicity compared to most other poker variants. It was only after I grasped Texas Holdem that I was able to appreciate 7-card stud and the extra levels to it, thinking about what the door cards meant at all.

Separately, it made logical sense to me why lowball can be an interesting game, and why triple-draw plays better for low than for high.

It does not make ANY sense to me why split-pot games grew beyond the stature of the other bizarre dealer's choice games with zillions of wild cards, passing cards left and right, and whatnot... I was truly amazed to see that they were taken as serious games. I am assuming that means I've missed something deep - can anyone tell me what?

[AKQJ10]

Well, fish love them because more hands give them the chance of feeling they've "won". Good O8 players would fold K943r players without a second thought, but bad players think it's great to stay in on a two-low flop and chase half the pot.

Anything that makes it fun for fish to play -EV poker is a "special redeeming quality" in my book. YMMV.

[Jeff Wartman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, fish love them because more hands give them the chance of feeling they've "won". Good O8 players would fold K943r players without a second thought, but bad players think it's great to stay in on a two-low flop and chase half the pot.

Anything that makes it fun for fish to play -EV poker is a "special redeeming quality" in my book. YMMV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this. Amateur players have no concept of the necessity of scooping the pot. If a player wants to chase half the pot all the time, it can only mean good things for those of us that know what we're doing.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

High-low split games are more mathematical than high-only games, which is good for thinking players. More hands look playable, which is good for fishy action junkies (and good for good players playing with action junkies).

I actually find high-low split games boring many times because the play seems a lot more automatic due to the math and there are fewer opportunities for "creative" plays. On the other hand, if I had to play a really bad player heads up, I think I might prefer limit O8.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
High-low split games are more mathematical than high-only games, which is good for thinking players. More hands look playable, which is good for fishy action junkies (and good for good players playing with action junkies).

I actually find high-low split games boring many times because the play seems a lot more automatic due to the math and there are fewer opportunities for "creative" plays. On the other hand, if I had to play a really bad player heads up, I think I might prefer limit O8.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only partially true. 0maha8 is very automatic. I agree it's the best game to play against fish, since it combines a low variance with a high potential win rate. But I donn't find the advanced play very exciting.

On the other hand, Stud8 may well be the most sophisticated limit game developed to date. There are more tricky judgement/read decisions than any other game (with the possible exception of limit holdem).

[AaronBrown]

I like hi-lo, it leads to a lot of interesting strategic situations. For that reason, it appeals to, as PokrLikeItsProse says, some thinking players. That wouldn't be enough to make it popular.

The main reason these games are popular is almost any hand seems playable. Either it's good, and you play for high, or bad, so you play for low, or in-between so you see what happens. Of course, that's a terrible way to play, but it does allow a lot of action. You can't get a run of terrible cards as you can in hi or lo only games. And as long as a lot of other people are playing, even the good players should be exploiting the pot odds. So it hurts the weak-tight players, which is what everyone likes.

One reason I know it's not the thinking players who are driving the popularity, is the game is most interesting when you have to declare. "Cards speak" is good for people who aren't sure what they have, much less what other players are likely to have.

However, I don't believe there should be one kind of poker. I like to play alternating games, like HORSE. One game all night gets boring, and leads to mechanical, specialist play. Real poker is more likely to take place with some variety in the games. Hold'em is the great spectator game, and is simple to play but still very interesting. More than other kinds of poker, almost every hand has at least some non-trivial action. But it tests the narrowest range of poker skills of any major variant, and has the smallest set of strategic situations.

[guy4565]

Popularity has alot to do with it being an action game more than TH, I play a couple games in Anchorage that are dealers choice and patience combined with a starting stack LOWER than most of the action players makes for a good combination to leave with 4 to 5 times what you started with, as long as the rake and the blinds are reasonable. The high low option lets the fish chase, which is great. The pot limit games vs limit seem to be the best since it does deny the long shot chasing. I've found that in the card rooms I play in these games are the favorite of the players who have the most "disposable" money, ie. earned some way other than what I would consider a real job. They like the action, they bet every hand. It isn't all luck, good starting cards and a low stack generally lets you leave with a profit, deep stack play is more complicated and with all the people who think a couple 9's with an a2 is an all in hand, it can get lost pretty quickly. I agree though, there are a large number of games with the wild cards and the shuck2 type games that just lead to big pots and alot of luck. I avoid those. Position is extremely important in these games, along with the knowledge of when to keep the pots small and when to push it. I think anyone who limits themselves to only TH is missing out on some great chances to make money and increase your knowledge of the game in general. Of course again, just my opinion. Another side note: with all the players who have become very good at hold em, you find a lot less skill for the most part at other games.

[Red_Diamond]

Split games are my favourite. I just wish more sites had these.

[Siegmund]

Lots of interesting comments so far. I can understand that the presence of fish makes a game an attractive target for the good players.

I am not quite sure what to make of the 'more mathematical' claim -- I have always preferred the statistical side of poker to the psychological, and was pleasantly surprised to rediscover 7stud partly for that reason. I remain unclear whether "it's all mathematical, not much room for other skills to show through, boring" or "it's all mathematical so the non-mathematically-minded idiots are losing lots of money" lines are more believable.

[bbartlog]

Evaluating hands for playability is a little more interesting (in O8 for example) than in Hold'Em.
There are some interesting possibilities for bluffs/pressure from the low hand to the high and vice versa.
Calculating pot odds and implied odds is much trickier in a split pot game.