Bored now. Invent a novel poker variant.

[Salmon]

Okay - draw poker for high, two blinds.

One betting round.
Draw cards.
Second betting round.
Show-down and the best hand wins HALF the pot.
Players keep their hands and then draw cards again.
Players then play their cards like a trick-taking game - a card is dealt off the top of the deck to declare trump. The player who won the first half of the pot leads to the first trick. The player who wins the most tricks wins the second half of the pot.

[Phat Mack]

Here's an interesting omaha variant posted on another list by long-ago Other Games poster "occupant."

Scooter: Players are dealt four cards; either before or after the flop, players discard as many cards from their hands as they wish, but at showdown they must use all the cards they kept.

[DanielM]

My name is Daniel Moskal. I'm an inventor and an amateur poker player. I had an idea for a new poker game that you might find a fun change of pace. Please let me know what you think.

I tried to balance having enough luck to keep the weak player’s in, and enough skill for serious players to make decent money over time. Also, I wanted to balance the information available to the players with the hidden information. I’ve also tried to force situations where the player must make tough choices.

The rules are simple.

There is a small blind of ½ a small bet and a big blind of 1 small bet, as usual. Antes optional. The button acts last before the flop, but position after the flop is determined by a means explained below.

Each player is dealt 3 cards face down. They use 1 or 2 cards from their hand with the 5 community cards to make the best 5 card hand. You may not play the board.
Every player who has a live hand after the pre-flop betting is complete chooses one card, and sets it aside. All players turn up that cards simultaniously. Whomever has the highest card showing has position for the next betting round (ties broken by the usual spade, heart, diamond, club order). I think it works better if everyone turns their card up simultaneously, because if the cards are revealed one at a time it would provide too large of an advantage to the player showing last. (All rules are flexible, of coarse).
If playing Low, or Burlesque8 (Hi-Lo), the low card has position.

Post flop dealing and betting rounds are just like Hold-Em / Omaha. If the high card folds, the highest live card remaining gets position during the next betting round.

A few thoughts:

*Forcing the players to choose an up-card is a tough choice, and reveals much about their play- even when they fold. If playing multi-games, it can reveal something about how they play those games.
*Giving the high card position in later rounds creates a conflict of interest. You want to hide your best cards, but you want position too.
*Because the blinds won’t necessarily have bad position in later rounds, it gives them reason to defend.
*Players can buy position by forcing the high card out.
*You can't hide a dealt pair every time, sometimes you must split them. Otherwise observant players will know that if you pair your up card, you don't have trips.
*You can't say "My hand pre-flop is a XX% favorite against a hand with X upcard, because the upcard wasn't a random choice.
*A four-flush or four-straight on the board is dangerous.
*In Burlesque8, fewer low hands are made, so more scooping. A strong starting high hand has more value.

Let me know what you think, and happy playing.

Daniel Moskal

PS: I call it Burlesque Poker because you tease the players by only showing a little bit (when you turn the card face up).

[Nichlemn]

Potripper Hold'em:

(Online only)

Every hole card has a (25%?) probability of, unknown to that player, being revealed to all other players.

[MarkGritter]

From a conversation with 2461Badugi, most of the ideas are his:

"Three's a Crowd" stud variant: if three or more people go to showdown, the high hand wins. If two people go to showdown, the low hand wins.

Idea: Standard poker rankings have the property that if A beats B, and B beats C, then A beats C. "Nontransitive" games like rock-paper-scissors lack this property.

"Roshambo Stud Hi/Lo": Play Stud/8, but at showdown: a straight beats a full house, a flush beats a straight, and a full house beats a flush.

Of course, this only works at all when heads-up. Is there a way to extend nontransitive rankings to multi-way showdowns? Perhaps something a long these lines:

"Cripple Mr. Ace": applied to Hold'em, Omaha, Stud, or Draw. At showdown, deuces outrank aces if both are present in the same type of hand. Thus, if the showdown is 22, AA, and QQ, the deuces win, but if it is 22, 77, and QQ, the queens win. KQJ53-flush beats J9872-flush, but AQJ53-flush loses. A2346-flush beats AKQJ9-flush because the deuce is a higher kicker.

[jbrennen]

Here's an idea that I've been kicking around for a while. It works with any hi/lo split game.

There are 3 classes of chips -- normal chips, low chips, and high chips. The chips are marked in an obvious way such that there is no confusion over which chips are which.

Normal chips behave as always; low or high chips can only be used to win that particular half of the pot. Once you put a low chip into a pot, you can't win the high half of the pot, and vice versa. You can't put both low and high chips into the pot -- if you have put one or more low chips into the pot, and you run out of low and normal chips, you are considered all-in even if you have high chips left (and vice versa).

If you run out of normal chips, and have not put any low or high chips into the pot, you must declare at the time that you put your last normal chip into the pot whether you are all-in or not, and that decision is binding for the remainder of the hand -- which means that if you state that you are NOT all-in, you may be forced by future action to effectively declare your hand high or low prior to showdown. This means that an opponent could make a min bet into you for the sole purpose of making you declare your hand.


Each split pot (main and side) is distributed as evenly as possible, within each class of chips.


When a player buys in, they get normal:low:high chips in a ratio of 3:1:1. (This could be tweaked of course.)


Analysis -- obviously, the chips do not all have equal value. Normal chips are most valuable, and low chips are least valuable (assuming you're playing with a low qualifier). However, the ability to set your low or high chips 1-for-1 against an opponent's normal chips leads to interesting ideas. Take effective pot odds for instance -- although the odds may not support a call with your valuable normal chips, they might easily support calling with your less valuable low chips. If you're playing Stud/8, and you get your strong low heads up against an obvious monster high, you should probably jam the pot with your low chips; he'll be forced to call with normal or high chips, and at showdown, even though the pot is split, you'll end up trading some of your low chips for his high or normal chips.

[Sp00n]

Razz where the second best hand wins, who knows what a good starting hand would be.

[electrical]

[ QUOTE ]
Razz where the second best hand wins, who knows what a good starting hand would be.

[/ QUOTE ]
A rough anything.

[Ben Young]

ok here's something I've been throwing around in my head. I call it "Lo-Hi" as opposed to "Hi-Lo"

This is any game where your pool of cards exceeds 5, 7stud, HE, omaha, etc. If it goes to a showdown, the winner is the one whose best high hand is the lowest of all those comparing.

thoughts?

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
ok here's something I've been throwing around in my head. I call it "Lo-Hi" as opposed to "Hi-Lo"

This is any game where your pool of cards exceeds 5, 7stud, HE, omaha, etc. If it goes to a showdown, the winner is the one whose best high hand is the lowest of all those comparing.

thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have referred to this idea as "true inversion" ranking. True inversion Omaha is Lomaha, which has some interesting properties.