Hi,

When I opened my deck of cards today and removed the Joker cards as usual, I thought about giving them a chance to be part of action at the table.

So I imagined this variant of the 7-2 game :

- You include only one Joker card in the deck, making it to 53 cards.
- When you are dealt a Joker, it counts as "nothing" so you have to make a hand with your other card only.
- If you win the hand with the Joker, every other player at the table -even people who didn't play the hand- must give you something along 5-10bb (can vary obv).
- You must win the hand AT SHOWDOWN if you want to win the "Joker Bonus". That's why it's called "Lucky Joker", because you need to be lucky to win with that useless Joker in your hand. If there's no showdown, then you just win the pot.
- If the Joker is being dealt on the board, just discard it in the muck and deal the next card without burning.

I'm not sure it's mathematically playable because I guess it's kinda hard to make a hand winning at showdown with only one card, but it's like a Jackpot, it's not meant to be won very often, just to add some action sometimes.
Sadly I can't really play live poker atm and my poker buddies probably wouldn't play this because they would find it "too funky" I guess so I can't try this myself...

But is that just a stupid idea or would you think is it playable ?

Add it to 5- or 6-card Omaha.

Ahah, why not also, but doesn't it become too easy maybe then ?

Interesting idea.

I think the game is playable, but it seems like a "sucker" game to me.

(Anyone who pays to play without the joker is a sucker).

Just my opinion.

Buzz

Would seem MUCH better to include non-showdown victories. This would significantly increase action/bluffing, as it does in the 2-7 game

If you don't have the Joker, then you play your 2-cards hand like any normal hand, you don't have to "pay" anything or I just didn't understand your comment

That was the most ambiguous point I was thinking about, too.
But the original idea is to take some risk to sucker win with only one card, not to be the best poker player by bluffing everybody out of the pot.

It's really hard to win with a four-card hand in any Omaha, but especially the larger varieties. You could add allowing the joker to play four board cards, which might make it too easy but would be interesting. (I was assuming you only get the joker bonus if you use the joker, not if you play two other cards from your hand.)

I actually think holdem-wise this is a sucker game in the reverse direction Buzz does. Anyone who pays to play *with* the joker is a sucker. Not having a second card costs far too much, and even a lot of your "wins" will be chops.

Actually not really playable in Omaha since playing with 4 cards of the board isn't fair towards your opponents.
But I guess you meant more like playing regular Omaha, and then if you win the hand with TWO cards of your four, you show the Joker and grab the bonus. Could be interesting also, but then you should make a very little reward because someone getting the bonus will probably happen very often.

In case of split pot (not so often imo), you're still granted the bonus, or at least half of it. There must have an incentive trying to grab the bonus, of course.
It's indeed probly a bit of kamikaze move to play with the Joker, but if the reward is high enough, some might be interested...

Just to be clear, my Omaha game goes like this: At showdown, if you play one card from your hand, the joker, and three board cards, and win, you win the bonus. You don't get it if you have the joker in your hand but it doesn't play.

What I'm still thinking about is whether it makes sense to allow playing one hand card, the joker, and four board cards. I think this adds some fun things but I'm not sure it works. The joker in your hand would not allow you to play two hand cards and four board cards.

If the game is a variant of 2-7, if you're not the big blind poster don't you have to pay to draw?

Let's say you're playing six handed. In that case you're dealt 5 cards and your five opponents are collectively dealt 25 cards, leaving 22 undealt cards. Assuming you're not dealt the joker, I think that makes it 25 to 22 that one of your opponents holds the joker before the draw.

I don't generally want to draw against an opponent who already holds the joker. (And chances are, with 5 opponents in a 6-handed game, one of your opponents has been dealt the joker).

That's what I meant. When I'm playing in a game with a wild card, I want to be the one who is holding the wild card.

Buzz

Well, when I said a variant of 2-7 game (I actually said 7-2), I was referring to the "bonus" game in NLHE when people who win with the 7-2 hand (showdown or not) are being given X amount by other players.
I wasn't talkin about 2-7 draw, we had a big misunderstanding here I actually posted in this part of forum because I thought it was the more appropriate for "exotic" variants like the one I proposed.
It doesn't seem very feasable in 2-7 draw, indeed

If you play only one card of your hand and three board cards, then you can't make flush/straight/full house ?

Well, since Omaha is based on making a hand with mandatory 3 board cards, I can't see how it would be fair to allow someone playing with 4 board cards, of course.

Ah. Sorry. My mistake.

Buzz