Here's a thing I've been thinking about. In Stud or Stud8, the forced bring-in by virtue of concealed cards may be a playable or even very strong starting hand. In Razz, the bring-in is typically a big card, which cannot be part of a quality starting hand. This tends to make a lot of hands end immediately, and creates an atmosphere where the game has little action, which makes it hard to introduce into some lineups.

I'd like to discuss a different starting method for Razz, similar to that used for some old draw games. All players ante, and starting with the lowest (best) door card, the players act in position. Their Third street options would be check (pass), open for the minimum or open for a full bet. Action continues normally after that. Check-raising would then be viable on Third street. If all players pass, the hands are mucked, all players ante again and the next hand is dealt with a double ante in the pot.

Obviously, after a hand has passed-out the double-size starting pot on the next hand would be a powerful incentive to open, which then makes passing while intending to check-raise more likely to succeed. Most importantly, this method would introduce ambiguity about starting hand strength, which is an important feature of Third street play in other stud games.

What does everybody think?

Sounds interesting, I have had similar thoughts about hand values on 3rd between Stud Hi and Razz myself.

What about using a dealer button to determine the opening hand on 3rd street?

Yeah that double ante thing would make it sick. I'd imagine there's gonna be a ton of times where it goes triple+ ante as well.

I don't know what'd be wrong with check and still be in the hand? Coz you said check = fold which I don't like. More multiway pots with check and see 4th free IMO.

If I understand correctly, you still want to make Razz different from other Stud games and eliminate the BI. If you just change it to the lowest (best) card is BI, you eliminate the problem and bring it more in line with the others, not move it further away.

I think if you want young people playing Razz you should just change the name back to Razzle Dazzle!

fyp

This actually makes it less "in line" with the other stud games.

In the "old" days stud high was played with the high card bringing it in. It was changed to the low card to induce more action because the high card didn't need any extra incentive to play but the low card often did. With the change the low card was then partially "forced" or priced in.

This action-inducement often doesn't work as well in Razz since a big card is just simply always nakedly bad but the concepts are the same. The low card, in general, doesn't need incentives but high cards sure do. How often would hands like (A2)K get played in Razz if they weren't the bring-in.

this is an awesome idea

They wouldn't. But (K2)A would.

In my proposal, passing on Third is not the same as folding, it's the same as checking except that if nobody opens the hands get mucked. In old 5CD games played this way, it was pretty common for big hands in early position to sandbag and then raise if it got opened behind. Later position was riskier but more profitable for sandbagging in loose games because you could trap several weak check-calling hands by passing late and letting the action come back around.

You want to create action early in the hand. You don't want everybody checking and seeing Fourth street for free with a tiny pot.

I say just make it a four card game and I'll take home all the money.

Also I think that making 7th street a no limit betting round would pretty much qualify Razz as the devil's game. Let's do it.

Good point.

you'd be surprised...

Steve, do you think equities running so closely on 3rd street is an issue w/ your proposed draw-game structure? It's not like sandbagging a23 would wtf pwn 678 or w/e...

Sandbagging is a minor thought at the moment. The main interest is trying to get around the mechanical nature of many 3rd street deals. Sandbagging would come into play most likely in a double-ante pot, which would make late position low cards more active in steal attempts.

what do you think about changing the bring-in to the littlest card?

Nitty. Bring-in defense would be correct way too often, so steals would be rare. I think it would kill the action.

so having the K bring it in creates more action, then, but not enough.

didn't Sklansky discuss a game where the high card brought it in and the low hand had a forced complete?

actually this isn't true. so say you have kk2 and everyone folds to you and a K. you steal, hand is over. but if you have KK3 and everyone folds to you and b/i is a 2, low, you fold, hand is over. same thing.

but

if suddenly it's correct to defend much more, now you have way more hands where someone opens utg or something, the b/i has to defend, and then you see 4th street. bam, action.

I think ChipsAhoya is awesome.

Not many would steal (KQ)4 vs a 2 bring. Everybody would steal with (KQ)4 vs a K bring. Having the low card bring it would mean a lot of pots were just folded out. Nitty.

Okay great. Thanks for sharing.

"folded out" doesn't indicate action. no more cards were dealt in either scenario, so it doesn't matter. but VPIP, avg. pot, and players/4th do, and they goes up if the b/i is a 2.

+1!!!!!

I like the forced complete idea a lot for the low card, keeping the high card as the bringin.