Why did a hi/lo version of hold 'em never develop?

[jfk]

Stud, Omaha and draw all have a high/low or low incarnation. Why has hold 'em never taken this evolutionary path?

[Niediam]

Becuase you only get two cards and virtually no hands without an ace would be playable.

[RobNottsUk]

But you could play Lo 2..9, rather than A..8.

One book I read recently, suggested an explanation; I think it was that due to only having 2 cards, you could only go Hi or Lo, not both unless the A's play Hi/Lo in which case they'd be the only hands you could play.

[JavaNut]

With only two hole cards, the 'risk' of almost always splitting the pot (one getting high, the other one low) is too great. And you would only have to consider each player for either high or low.

In Omaha and stud you can have the high and bluff low (or vice versa) only the rarest of hands could do that in hold'em.

In 99 percent of the case you would have 1-2 players for the low part and 1-2 players for the high part, if you have one for each and they kept betting they would only feed the rake.

Hold'em high/low is simply not a game worth playing[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Gonso]

I disagree, we play a limit version as part of a mixed game and it plays pretty well. Recently we've been playing it as 7OB to reduce split pots somewhat.