The OP in one place so no hold'em and in another place says no flop games, but who cares? Stud 8 seems to be the most popular non-flop game and it did once hold even more sway in the tournament world than it does now. I am no Stud 8 guy, but I think it is a complex game which, like NLHE, takes a lot of insight into poker in general, so I think it would be a reasonable choice.

I mean, if the biggest prize pool in the world were in a Stud 8 event (guffaw), why would it not be viewed as the World Championship event in all of poker. I'd give unlimited props to anyone who could win a 6000 player $10,000 Stud 8 tournament. In fact, I'd really respect such a player far more than, say Jerry Yang, Jamie Gold, Chris Moneymaker etc. And I am not even trying to sleight any of those three. It's just that while NLHE tournaments take both skill and luck, the fact is that they can be won almost by luck alone (not often, but it happens). That is almost never the case in Fixed Limit games.

But that said, realistically if Hold'em didn't exist, then someone would probably just invent it. And if it could not be invented (for some hypothetical reason created by the OP) then some other community card game would probably be invented and would be very popular. 7 Card Stud w/ Flip . . . maybe. But the fact that this game is not spread anywhere at all ever (so far as I know) suggests that it would not be a serious contender.

I play in a ~monthly home game that is a crazy mix. It's almost always been all limit games but I'm going to try to see if the guys will play a round of cap or something with it the next time somebody hosts. That kind of shows the problem I don't think the hold 'em/plo group will play but don't really think the mix game guys will embrace it either.

Rook

5card draw

With due respect, no one has addressed the re-stated hypothetical which is:

If you were looking for a ME game, and you had to choose between the traditional pre-holdem playlist and a game which
1. Used seven cards
2. Had two hole-cards and five exposed cards
3. Was dealt over four rounds of play.
4. Had what can be reasonably described as "a multi-card draw which brings five cards into play at the second round".
5. Was, according to experienced players familiar with the game, excellent when played with no-limit betting .....

then what would you do?

Since the description given is exactly the same as NLHE, the obvious answer is that a diligent person would try the game, and if it worked well for NL, to use it for the ME, regardless of it's current popularity: that is, to make what has proven to be the right choice, and pick the NL 7-card game.

If I understand correctly, some here would choose lowball, or some other game which would have no chance of attracting a mass market, which means that if they had been the ones to make the decision back in 1973 they would have got it wrong, and the WSOP would now be irrelevant, because a competing championship using NLHE would overwhelm it.


I don't get it: apart from the flop games, the only card new layouts which have been added to the conventional playlist in the past century or so are badugi and TD lowball. Outside that, there is a community-card version of 7cs called manila which only works for FL. So the notion that poker has a rich store of invention to draw on is a myth, and it's hard to see how anyone would just invent Holdem out of thin air: it's a small miracle that it even exists, considering how slow poker invention has been, and how radically different it is. And without Holdem, the market would be a fraction of what it is today.

Your re-stated hypothetical is now just trolling.

PL 7-card stud or PL 2-7 TD

If you force me into a false dichotomy, then I am sure your argument will prevail. If NLH did not exist, then the ME would probably be whatever game is the most exciting to watch on TV. I see no reason why that would necessarily have to be a game with any particular number of cards, exposed cards or betting rounds. I concede that whatever that would be, it would probably be No Limit.

Personally I think the community card aspect of Hold'Em is the reason that Hold'em is the most popular poker variant - it leads to especially interesting and complex problems and scenarios. Also community card games do not show favoritism towards those with a photographic memory (which all Stud variants do). For the same reasons, Omaha is the second most popular poker variant.

Also, most Stud variants seem flawed to me. Powerful Stud hands often have bad hands in absolutely terrible shape. That is, rolled up Aces have a hand like Q72r in ridiculously bad shape (about 2%). In Hold'em, AA is by far the most powerful starting hand, but 72o is still about 11% against American Airlines. In consequence, Hold'em is considerably more exciting as the any-two-can-win aspect is alluring to donks. In Stud, you would need something far more promising like T97 (with the 9&7 suited) in order to be a comparable 11% against AAA. Many similar issues arise on later streets as well.

While the examples I give above are a bit contrived (because few people would willingly play 72o against AA), the point is that generally speaking, in Stud there are a lot of situations where one player is far, far ahead and where that is obvious to the opponent (who can then fold). But in Hold'em, the rundown hands are much, much stronger - still not generally a great idea to play T9s against a raise, but the odds are just rewarding enough to keep the donks donating.

Maybe Stud w/ a flip would be different enough to overcome that problem, but at a glance I do not see how.

Regarding this: "it's hard to see how anyone would just invent Holdem out of thin air: it's a small miracle that it even exists"

I don't know what you are talking about and I doubt that you do either. There is no reliable information on the specific origins of Hold'em (other than that it comes from Texas). In the absence of reliable information on how the game came about, it is impossible to say with any certainty whether its creation was improbable or not.

The sustained popularity of any game relates mostly to the enjoyment that players get from playing the game (and I am talking about any sort of game here). There is a kind of natural selection process that applies to games. Games mutate occasionally and when they do, mutations which make for an enjoyable game tend to stick around - and will sometimes even become the standard rule - sometimes even essentially killing off the prior version.

That is why Bridge all but completely replaced Whist. Bridge is the more interesting game (primarily because of the challenge that it presents). That is also why my personal favorite game (Limit Hold'em) is dying - because people like NLH better. I imagine that eventually NLH will fall into disfavor as an even more exciting and intriguing variant rises to the top - perhaps PLO or some PLO derived game.

Because of this natural selection process in games, I think it was actually inevitable that someone would stumble across NLH or some very similar game. According to you, there is (and apparently can only ever be) one game that is similar to NLH. I don't believe that for a second, but if you are right about that, and I am right that natural selection causes game evolution, then the odds that NLH would be invented would seem to be something like 50-50. And indeed the fact that NLH is popular and Stud w/ a flip is not is at least some evidence that the odds of NLH being invented may well be quite a bit higher than that. That is to say, I don't think NLH's popularity is any kind of accident or coincidence. NLH is popular because it is a terrific game.

If Stud w/ flip is as terrific a game as you suggest, then it will also one day become popular. I'll see if the boys in the home game will give it a try. Maybe it will catch on.

"If I understand correctly, some here would choose lowball, or some other game which would have no chance of attracting a mass market, which means that if they had been the ones to make the decision back in 1973 they would have got it wrong, and the WSOP would now be irrelevant, because a competing championship using NLHE would overwhelm it."

You really can be a piece of work. How would a competing NLH championship exist if NLH did not exist (as is the premise of the whole freakin' discussion)?

If, as your hypothetical posits the question, the only possibilities in the entire universe were either Stud w/ a flip or a traditional pre-1973 non-flop game, then they would have chose a traditional pre-1973 non-flop game BECAUSE WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT STUD WITH A FLIP WAS NEVER, EVER CONSIDERED. We know this because Benny Binion himself has enumerated the games that were considered. Also, I would not be surprised if Stud w/ a flip had not yet been invented at the time, in which case it would not have been possible to choose it.

If it seems like I am not directly answering your question, that's because while the general topic is interesting, your specific question is not. Your question presents a narrow range of options which do not reflect anything like all of the possibilities - especially if we are going to bring into the picture games that were unknown/yet-to-be-invented (as is the case with Stud w/a Flip). The notion that you already know about every possible future poker variation is absurd. In fact, the very notion that you know about every currently existing variation is absurd. So to conclude that Stud w/ a Flip is the only possible alternative to NLH is basically just monomania.

There is no reason to think that any of those criteria are necessary or even helping in making a game interesting or worthy of being the ME game. You simply pulled pieces of NLHE that were the same as the game you are promoting and decided those were the factors we should look at when choosing a game. There isn't much to seriously address here as you are just presenting this arbitrary list of features like it's something meaningful, and then ridiculing us when we suggest the list is worthless.

5 card draw was at one time the most popular game of poker....until....holdem came.

So the logical answer would have to be 5 card draw.

They would probably need to make it NL for the TV audience.

How the game is not spread at the WSOP right now is beyond me. (though 5 card draw was once a bracelet event) They should bring it back, one limit event and one NL event.

jacks or better, trips to win...

I'm sorry you feel that way Rusty. I thought it was a simple re-statement of the question, which has a simple answer: if presented with the same (or very similar) set of circumstances, as existed in 1973, of having to choose between the traditional playlist and a new no-limit seven-card game, what would you do? I would have thought that the answer is obvious: try out the new game to see if it is in fact a quality NL game, and if so, seriously consider choosing that game, because as we know, the choice of a NL seven-card game of that general description has been incredibly successful.

It's a hypothetical question in which the 1973 situation is used to highlight the predicament that WSOP organizers were in. Since the choice they made has been vindicated by creating a mass market far bigger than would have been created by other games, then even if you don't understand why, those facts remain. Quibbles about the terms of the hypothetical are simply a way of avoiding the question, which is not a "false dichotomy": it's a hypothetical, which is easy to answer. But you don't like the answer, so you attack the terms.

(FYI, as far as I know, stud with a flip was invented in 1998, so it wasn't considered. But if it had been around in 1973, it would have been, and if NLHE hadn't been around, it would have been the best choice available.)

If you don't understand why four rounds of play, seven-card hands, the draw to five cards at the second round, and exposing five out of seven cards have produced such a successful game, well, the answers are there to see, if you look: it's a massive failing in poker theory that those basic questions are not even addressed, and that what has happened in the past decade is considered to be more or less random, rather than a technical revolution. Yes, the internet was a huge factor which would have led to an online poker boom, but it would have been much smaller if NLHE hadn't been available, and it's the quality of the game - which is determined by it's layout, as well as the use of NL betting - which made the difference.

The answers given here amount to simply ignoring the seven-card game, without testing it, and choosing from the traditional playlist, which cannot be defended as a diligent response. If the WSOP organizers had done that - that is, ignored the new seven-card game - and stuck with their decision, the WSOP would be irrelevant.

That's strictly a matter of opinion, and is personal preference. You're basically saying that because it a priori proves the point you were trying to make to begin with. If I thought limit poker were better, I could just as easiliy state that poker is first and foremost a card game.

You're ignoring other elements of poker. Stack sizes in NL, for example.

You could also make the case that NL requires less skill than limit, since in NL you can often accomplish what you want merely by brute force, whereas in Limit to accomplish the same thing takes subtlety and imagination.

I'm looking and don't see the answers. Please provide them for us.