Is Triple Draw really worth it?

[Big Limpin]

This is all very interesting to hear. I havent played 2-7 but i've played plenty of razz. Its sounds just like if you were talking about razz.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the variance is high and yes a lot of the decisions are automatic. One part of the problem (if it could be called a problem) is that in order to increase your edge you also increase variance through playing the turn aggresively and liberal value-betting on the river. But all it takes is one bad player to make a triple draw game good, and from what I understand there are plenty of bad players at all of the limits.

I don't know if playing TD is worth it or not in terms of win-rate, bankroll managment, etc. Its certainly hard to multi-table TD- both because of the amount of clicking and the lack of games. And I have a feeling that I could win more by multitabling NLHE sngs, but I love the pain.....

[DustinG]

[ QUOTE ]
This is all very interesting to hear. I havent played 2-7 but i've played plenty of razz. Its sounds just like if you were talking about razz.


[/ QUOTE ]

My experience with razz is quite limited, and I either run bad or suck, probably a little of both I think. But the fuller tables make razz not nearly as fun as triple draw imo.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
There is without a doubt a certain masochism involved in playing duece. And this pain is something that I'm experiencing right now after my 50 bet loss yesterday and bad running right now- even in the low stakes games on stars which are so much better than I ever saw on UB.

I don't know if playing TD is worth it or not in terms of win-rate, bankroll managment, etc. Its certainly hard to multi-table TD- both because of the amount of clicking and the lack of games. And I have a feeling that I could win more by multitabling NLHE sngs, but I love the pain.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Friend,

I have played low limit TDL against you on UB. I had one very bad day, one of the worst ever on UB playing TDL. I beat the seven stud games there easily but TDL proved very costly. I also sat and watched you TDL game and started avoiding you if I had a choice. You are too good for me to play TDL against. However, I have seen you down a 100 big bets and if it can happen to a player as good as you then what chance is there for me...

[DustinG]

Much appreciated sir.

I just started playing again after a long absence, but my experience was that I would have a -100 bet downswing on average about once every two weeks. (averaging probably 6 hours/day everyday) And thats why I'm a firm believer in a 500 bet roll for TD. Perhaps at the lower stakes its possible to get by with a little less, but I think a big roll is nice just to help maintain emotional control when the inevitable downswing occurs.

But with big losses come big wins as well, and I had many periods where I made 100-150 bets in 2-3 days. I once helped contribute to one of the nuttier UB players (Gary) turn $11 into over $500 in just a few hours at 2-4. Gary would usually lose big but I don't think he cared too much about the stakes and he liked the TD action- I know there are players like him in the bigger games too.

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
The general problem is that any poker game where decision outcomes, regardless of how they are derived, are the same for both expert and fish is going to be one with a lower win rate. And it seems to me that there are a *lot* of scenarios where this is the case in Triple Draw.

gl

dd

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not following you here. Where are decision outcomes the same for fish and expert? Perhaps some examples....

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is all very interesting to hear. I havent played 2-7 but i've played plenty of razz. Its sounds just like if you were talking about razz.


[/ QUOTE ]

My experience with razz is quite limited, and I either run bad or suck, probably a little of both I think. But the fuller tables make razz not nearly as fun as triple draw imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Razz has the lowest variance of any game I have ever played. If you play tight and as advised in Sklansky on Razz you wont experience any huge downswings like you can in TD. Razz got a bad reputation during the 2003 WSOP thanks to Norman Chad's jokes, he really hurt that game.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[Big Dave D]

Phat, I was being precise as I didnt want it to seem that the fish and expert made the same decision, just that what they eventually did was the same. So for a straightforward example, with a draw to go, a bad player may stay pat on all J and better against two players drawing one, but an expert may only stay on a 9 - assuming that Danny N's maths is right [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But when the fish has a 9 he is making the right move anyway. So although his decision process was flawed, it didn't matter as the *outcome* was the same.

I believe in general, a big part of edge and hence win rate is what and how you do different from your competition. Games like stud 8b and to an extent Omaha hilo have lots of things. It seems to me that in Triple Draw the biggest edge you can get is your temperment, and then hold onto your hat!

cheers

Dave

[Phat Mack]

OK, now I understand.

So for a straightforward example, with a draw to go, a bad player may stay pat on all J and better against two players drawing one, but an expert may only stay on a 9 - assuming that Danny N's maths is right But when the fish has a 9 he is making the right move anyway.

True, but the P of the fish breaking his 9 incorrectly is greater than that of the expert's.

But I quibble. I understand what you are saying, but I think it's true of all poker games, and can't see what it would be more true of TD. A bad PLO player may draw to a gutshot, but he's also going to draw to a big wrap. There are more gutshots than wraps in PLO, but there are also more Js than 9s in TD.

jmo

[Al Mirpuri]

Another argument against TDL is that the nuts are obvious so there is less nuanced play is available for expert players. A fish in hold'em will think himself winning but rarely know it. In TDL the fish is jamming with 75432 as well as the expert. In Hold'em there are many more instances of the near nuts that an expert would milk but a fish would not be able to.

[Big Dave D]

Phat,

When I wrote the example I was pretty aware it wasn't a good one. I just didnt want to do a Sklansky and say "Imagine a holdem game with 14 players and 1 card..." The general point is that some poker games reward better decision making more than others. The problem with TD, as far as I can see, is that in quite a few spots the play is so rote that the decision making is somewhat removed and bad and good players alike end up playing the same. This reduces win rate. Also, like a lot of low only games, there is a big luck factor. But more so. This increases variance. So fun and meta game to one side, why play it? I think I'm done with it now.

gl

bdd