Nutty and Non-Nutty Poker Variants

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
Stud hi/lo without a qualifier appears to be nutty! There are not many cases where a starting hand such as KKK can be assured of a scoop, but there are a few. (KxKx)KsQsJsTs(9s) is a straight flush and a KQJT9-low, and scoops against any quads on board, such as (xx)8888(x), since the latter can make only a pair of eights for low at best.

I need some help with your terms. In the hold 'em example, I assumed that the nuts was a hand that would win <u>regardless</u> of what its opponent's hand was. In the above hi-lo example, this is not the case--the nuts is opponent-dependent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am assuming that nuts = best hand given the information available to you. In board games, this is your hand + the board, but in stud games this is your hand + all your opponents' boards.

The question in either case is "is there some board (some boards) that will guarantee a win (or tie) for a given starting hand". If the answer is always yes (any starting hand can develop into a lock) then the game is nutty. If the answer is no (there is at least one starting hand that cannot lock up the pot no matter what falls) then the game is allergic.

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stud hi/lo without a qualifier appears to be nutty! There are not many cases where a starting hand such as KKK can be assured of a scoop, but there are a few. (KxKx)KsQsJsTs(9s) is a straight flush and a KQJT9-low, and scoops against any quads on board, such as (xx)8888(x), since the latter can make only a pair of eights for low at best.

I need some help with your terms. In the hold 'em example, I assumed that the nuts was a hand that would win <u>regardless</u> of what its opponent's hand was. In the above hi-lo example, this is not the case--the nuts is opponent-dependent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am assuming that nuts = best hand given the information available to you. In board games, this is your hand + the board, but in stud games this is your hand + all your opponents' boards.

The question in either case is "is there some board (some boards) that will guarantee a win (or tie) for a given starting hand". If the answer is always yes (any starting hand can develop into a lock) then the game is nutty. If the answer is no (there is at least one starting hand that cannot lock up the pot no matter what falls) then the game is allergic.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, this definition is helpful.

Can you think of any true-inversion or second-best game that can be nutty?

Is there a relationship between the nuttiness or alergicity of a game and its popularity or its ability to generate action?

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]

Can you think of any true-inversion or second-best game that can be nutty?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes!

Play Hold'em but eliminate all difference between ranks. There are still straights, flushes, etc., but any pair ranks as a tie with any other pair, both ends of the straight have equal value, top set splits the pot with bottom set, etc. Call this variant "Discrete Hold'em." Discrete Hold'em is nutty, although it produces a lot of split pots. (I invented it to find a variant in which holding 67 was better than AK.)

Now play the true inversion version of this game. (That is, each player must make the best possible hand from their hole cards + the board; the lowest of these hands wins the pot.) This game is also nutty. AA is the nuts with quads on board--- but then, so is every other hand! (Perhaps I should have named it "degenerate hold'em" rather than "discrete hold'em.")

I'm not sure how to define the nuts in a second-best game...

I think nuttiness has more to do with how much of your hand you get at once than anything else. Omaha's 2-card requirement means that 2/5 of your showdown hand is known at the start, while in other variants only 1/5 or 0/5 of your starting hand might play at the river. (While in Guts you get 3/3 of your hand!)

So, if we want an allergic Stud variant, perhaps we should try introducing a rule that two of your first three cards must play. Or that you are dealt two downcards and two upcards (instead of 2:1), since that also ensures that 2/5 of your showdown hand is known. (I can't believe that either of these are novel--- maybe I should troll through the poker variants site and see if I can find a reference.)

(However, Omaha-with-revealed-pairs is nutty. Additional information can thus turn an allergic game into a nutty one. So it may be hard to make an allergic stud variant because of the additional information provided by board cards.)