Which poker variation is most exploitable by pure math strategy?

[pokervintage]

Not being a math wizard I am rendering a guess here. I think that of all the somewhat commonly played poker variations Pot Limit Omaha is one that lends itself most to a winning stategy comprised mostly of mathematically justified plays.

I think 2-7 triple draw might be second if not first but then again I`m no Euler. So a little help please.

pokervintage

[sh58]

limit omaha hi lo maybe. i'd guess limit games are more exploitable by math strategy. pot limit and no limit games more psychology.

[player]

Razz

[morello]

No way to PLO. I'd say Stud 8 or Razz would be your best bets.

[New York Jet]

[ QUOTE ]
Razz

[/ QUOTE ]

[AaronBrown]

I think pot limit Omaha is a good choice for betting mathematics. Pot limit requires more strategy than either limit or no limit, and Omaha has a tremendous variation in strategy due to card combinations.

Card play mathematics rather than betting mathematics dominates in triple draw.

[SplawnDarts]

I think it's safe to say the consensus answer is limit Omaha 8 and stud hi/lo (no qualifier).

I have very little experience at the later form, but I believe the consensus is right. PLO strikes me as a ridiculous choice.

[pokervintage]

Aaron,

My thinking (yes occaisionally I try to think) runs something like this; preflop in Pot Limit Omaha one hand is never a huge (big) favorite over another. Unlike holdem where the best hand A,A is about a 4 to 1 favorite over the next best hand, the best hand in PLO may be about 2 to 1 and most match ups are much closer. Consider next that one can always offer precisely 2 to 1 odds. This has a dramatice effect on ones ability to determine (precisely) correct odds to give or take. Post flop play is where most money goes in and where considerable information is available to determine one`s play. Even though one gets more cards at Omaha it is much easier to put ones opponent on a hand and what it takes to beat him once the flop is out. It is a game very much controlled by the nuts and draws and redraws. It is not a game in which bluffing plays much of a role.

pokervintage

[Whirlwind]

The more simplistic the game the more an optimal strategy comprised of mathematic applies. Your question was a "winning" strategy, but I prefer the word optimal.

This immediately eliminates pot limit and no limit. The betting and playing complexities are significantly greater than limit play. Sklansky did come up with a simple no limit hold'em strategy for tournaments, that might be a winning strategy, but probably not.

The easiest games from a mathematical perspective to achieve optimal play would have the fewest betting rounds.

Number one game would be the old home game of Indian Chief with only one betting round.

Number one traditional game would be draw poker with two betting rounds. There is a lot more to expert play at this game than math, but math is at the core of optimal play.

Number one game played at the world series of poker is "probably" limit Omaha 8 or better.

Number one pot limit or no limit game is "probably" Omaha High only as you suggested

[wheelflush]

no-peek 7stud has a lot of betting rounds, but it's all math. you can't see your cards, so there's no way to bluff. just do the math and stay in if you have the odds.