Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Stud Discussions of various forms of stud poker.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-05-2011, 02:24 PM   #51
Phat Mack
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Phat Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: People's Republic of Texas
Posts: 6,041
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrennen View Post
I know it's a pretty fundamental change, but how about adding a "second street" before "third street". Two hole cards dealt, blinds of 1/2 SB and 1 SB, bet size is 1 SB; get rid of the antes, the blinds serve the same purpose.

Third street would play like fourth street does today -- best board opens the action.
How about if there was the betting round on 2nd street, then 3rd and 4th streets were dealt together, with the next bet on 4th street?

Sort of a take-off on mississippi stud.
Phat Mack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2011, 09:59 AM   #52
SuitedBaby
grinder
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Coast
Posts: 670
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

Old thread but I had an idea.

What if Razz was played the way it is now with the same betting structure and same high card bring-in but with one change. If the bring-in sees 4th street they get their 4th street card down. Everyone else still in gets their 4th street card up as usual. The rest of the game plays as normal.

I think the stealth factor would make defending irresistable sometimes to some, perhaps even multiway. It also makes 4th less of an uphill parlay for the defender. Now if the opener catches bad the defender can often be in business regardless of their own down card. The opener/stealer also now never has the luxury of an auto-bet when the defender catches bad.

The benefits of a 4th down card would extend throughout the hand perhaps leveling the playing field a bit but certainly making it more interesting.

I think I'll call it Stealth Card Razz. Maybe the name is lame but the game might gain, lol.
SuitedBaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2011, 10:05 AM   #53
camz2895
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lafayette, LA
Posts: 7,246
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

eh i dont think it woudl change much...if you are defending...whether your 4th is down or up, when you call a bet it's not like you didn't catch a good card...whether villain can see it or not...doubt anyone would be trying to float a 4th street bet with a brick and K...but you never know.
camz2895 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2011, 10:19 AM   #54
Phat Mack
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Phat Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: People's Republic of Texas
Posts: 6,041
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuitedBaby View Post
Old thread but I had an idea.

What if Razz was played the way it is now with the same betting structure and same high card bring-in but with one change. If the bring-in sees 4th street they get their 4th street card down. Everyone else still in gets their 4th street card up as usual. The rest of the game plays as normal.

I think the stealth factor would make defending irresistable sometimes to some, perhaps even multiway. It also makes 4th less of an uphill parlay for the defender. Now if the opener catches bad the defender can often be in business regardless of their own down card. The opener/stealer also now never has the luxury of an auto-bet when the defender catches bad.

The benefits of a 4th down card would extend throughout the hand perhaps leveling the playing field a bit but certainly making it more interesting.

I think I'll call it Stealth Card Razz. Maybe the name is lame but the game might gain, lol.
I kinda like this idea. I don't think it'll catch on, but I didn't think razz would catch on, so what do I know?

I find it interesting that the value of having 4th street down might be quantifiable. If its value were calculated, this format might be tweaked, if necessary, into something fun.

jmo
Phat Mack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2011, 11:36 AM   #55
skoldpadda
old hand
 
skoldpadda's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In a DFW novel
Posts: 1,562
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

How would you determine who acts first on 4th if one+ player now has 2 upcards and 1 has only 1?

Last edited by skoldpadda; 04-07-2011 at 11:36 AM. Reason: fkn luddite
skoldpadda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2011, 12:06 PM   #56
jbrennen
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: "quite good at the poker!"
Posts: 1,959
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

The guy with the extra down card acts first on every street. He gets the advantage of secrecy, give him the disadvantage of being out of position.

EDIT: came up with a slight modification that would work well I think. If the guy with the extra down card makes it to the river, his river card is dealt face up, and then the river betting round plays normally.

Last edited by jbrennen; 04-07-2011 at 12:12 PM.
jbrennen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2011, 12:54 PM   #57
SuitedBaby
grinder
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Coast
Posts: 670
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

Good point skoldpadda

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrennen View Post
The guy with the extra down card acts first on every street. He gets the advantage of secrecy, give him the disadvantage of being out of position.

EDIT: came up with a slight modification that would work well I think. If the guy with the extra down card makes it to the river, his river card is dealt face up, and then the river betting round plays normally.
I would still go with low hand goes first. If some have trouble with an uneven number of cards then simply treat the 4th street down card like an imaginary lowest card just below an ace that obviously can't be paired. I think the key here is to give the bring-in more "play" and to get players to defend more liberally.
With xx6J versus xxKx the 67 goes first.
With xx6J2Kx versus xxKx54x the Kx54 goes first.

Don't know about the river card face up to the bring-in. I think that may be too big of a turnaround in "advantages" but maybe not since it is limit and the pot is big anyway. The problem with all this is that it is hard to quantify changes. Probably be fun learning though. It would also likely give a skill advantage to those who study and learn the quickest. Like changing stud high-low split to 8 or better, etc.
SuitedBaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2011, 08:02 PM   #58
ChipsAhoya
2011 $10k Stud8 Champion
 
ChipsAhoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Splitting pots on a slide
Posts: 6,824
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

hey, you know why else a low-card bring in would increase action? You can now semibluff r/r 3rd instead of having to flat call most of the time you can defend.
ChipsAhoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2011, 12:29 AM   #59
Dr No
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 72
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

Why have a bring in at all? Just pump up the antes and use a rotating dealer button.
Dr No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2017, 09:59 PM   #60
electrical
Loaded for bear
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 4,027
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

Bumping because this is still a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrical View Post
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?
electrical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2017, 06:21 AM   #61
leavesofliberty
self-banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: probably busto
Posts: 6,146
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyBrooks View Post
I like the forced complete idea a lot for the low card, keeping the high card as the bringin.
+1. This solution is elegant, and easily implemented.
leavesofliberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2017, 01:39 PM   #62
Phat Mack
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Phat Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: People's Republic of Texas
Posts: 6,041
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyBrooks View Post
I like the forced complete idea a lot for the low card, keeping the high card as the bringin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavesofliberty View Post
+1. This solution is elegant, and easily implemented.
I've played this way and it seems to be much better than the standard, and much more popular. It could be tweaked a little by making the bring-in tiny.

But one question is: is it any better than electrical's suggestion? From my stand point, electrical's might be an improvement, but I've played a lot of formats that featured unopened pots, so it seems a normal thing to try. Others may find it baffling, however.

The real question to me is: is razz worth saving? It was a game designed to take off tourists. It has some interest as a toy game, and I learned a lot by trying to figure it out, but what is exciting, or even interesting, about playing it?
Phat Mack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2017, 04:38 PM   #63
electrical
Loaded for bear
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 4,027
Re: Proposed Razz structural change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat Mack View Post
The real question to me is: is razz worth saving?
OFF THE ISLAND! NOW!

Hilo was the game that skinned the suckers. Razz has aspects that are unique to it and almost any game like that creates unique mistakes to exploit. I'm fond of razz and I think people don't want to play it because they don't understand these unique situations. If you don't recognize those spots and play them well, it seems like a purely mechanical game where the best looking hand gets the pot.

The spot that comes up most often is the player with the clearly second-best hand (not a hand that is possibly behind but a hand that is absolutely behind another hand) raising/jamming in a 3-way pot not just to potentially fold out another hand but for value. That exact situation comes up really infrequently in other games, but all the time in Razz.

A lot of people know that a smooth draw is a favorite over a rough made hand on Fifth, for example, but you don't have smooth draws often, so it's important to know when your 86 draw is a favorite over a made hand like a Jack, and more important yet to know when your Jack with a redraw is a favorite over a Seven draw that has misapplied this concept and is jamming you.

It's a cool game, but not if you just peek at it.
electrical is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online