This needs to be introduced online. Like, now. I've had it with FL high-only.

While it has been independently discovered many times over that "big bet" stud (PL or NL) doesn't work well, and that fixed-limit is a structure that begs for the underdog to suck out hand after hand after hand (and for the underdog to actually not be making a significant mistake to do so), spread limit has worked nicely in casinos for years. It is probably the ideal way to play stud high.

Put this into the rotation at PokerStars and I'm ready to come back to the game. For now I won't touch stud outside of 8 or better. From what I've heard in chatboxes and forums here and there, a large number of players seem to feel the same way. The randomness in stud high - all the factors working to mitigate the effect of skill - are just too much to deal with.

Do you fellows have any good arguments for or against replacing fixed limit with spread limit online?

I dont know about replacing, but having that extra choice would be great. And H/L no qualifier.

what exactly is spread limit??

i think half pot-limit would be perfect for stud high.

the betting amounts are balanced just right between drawing hands and big pair hands.

fixed limit stud is frustrating because people can stick around with such ordinary hands and suck out.

but as you say full pot limit stud favours the big pairs far too much and makes it redicolously expensive to draw to a hand.

whilst no limit stud would be stupid as there isn't much between your typical starting hands.

i certainly wouldn't be replacing anything but i definetaly think there needs to be re-think of the structure and come up with something else to put in the rotation.

spread limit means you can bet anywhere from the lower end of the range to the upper end, like 2-6 spread limit means that the minimum you can bet is $2 and the maximum is $6.

I think with spread limit the pot quickly becomes a size where the maximum bet is still small compared to the pot, there's rarely a reason to bet less than the maximum except when the spread is really large like the pseudo-no-limit games you used to see (spread limit from $1-$100 with $100 stacks)

No offense, but it's tempting to think that the structure of the betting is a problem, when it definitely is possible to win in most limit games, regardless of the fact that people get priced to draw.

yeah i was just having a read of spread limit there on the net. i'd have to see it in action because i can't really picture it. the small size of the pot at the start tends to suggest you can get rid of drawing hands with big bets on fourth and particularly fifth street.... but by which stage they may have hit their draw.

just say the spread is 1-5, 1-10 right.... on third street a guy bets 1, next guy raises to 4, that means the next guy can only re-raise to 5 yeah?? or is it the bets and raising sizes are spread from 1-5, 1-10.... so first guy bets 1, next guy raises to 4 and the next guy can call 4, or raise anywhere from 7 to 9 in total (still have to re-raise the minimum of the raise with a maximum raise of 5)??

have no prob with the fixed limit structure. it's not causing me to lose so i'm not looking for an excuse to change things up... i'm still inexperienced (less than 2 months, and around 2000 hands) but stud is the first poker variant that my first couple of thousand hands have seen me not in the red.... obviously extremely small sample but hopefully it stays that way and i can move up from the beginner's stage where i'm at now ($0.25/$0.50).

but still having thought through the way bet sizing in half-pot limit stud would work, i'd love to see it in action and see if it actually does work in reality. i've read on that net they used to play in a few casino's in europe. don't know if they do anymore.

I was referring to OP, who said


I'd actually like to make one comment about this, because I think there's a really common mistake being made.

If you have the best hand and your opponent has a certain chance to beat that hand, and you can't bet enough to make it a mistake for him to fold, then it is NOT a mistake for him to call, right? OK, sure. But the misconception is...

You still make money by betting

You just don't make as much as if he folded.

Let's say there is $60 in the pot. You're playing 5/10. It's 6th street and your opponent has a 25% chance to beat you. He's a 3:1 dog but he's getting 7:1 from the pot, so, easy call.

75% of the time, you, the better, make an additional $10
25% of the time, you lose that $10
You gain $5 by betting. You'd gain 25% of $60 which is $15 if he folded - so yeah, it would be great if you could get him to fold but it's not as if you can't make a profit because he's priced to call.

Even if you call him 100% of the time when he improves, then
75% of the time, you make $10
25% of the time, you lose $20
So this is worth $7.5 - $5 = $2.5 which is still a healthy profit.

Just wanted to throw that out there. Note that if you could give him incorrect odds and he called anyway, not only do you make more money, but he profits less than if he folded.

I have a poker game on my PC called Hoyle Poker. It has many many variants of poker including razz, stud h/l no qualifier, and stud high, and you play against the AI. It features limit or spread limit, and it seems the spread limit rules dictate that, for example, you can bet $4 in a $1-$5 game, and be raised by someone by $1, meaning you can raise any amount between $1 and $5 or call the extra $1 or of course fold. There is absolutely no amount of limit to the amount of raises that can be made. However, in all of the variants, the limit was smaller on the first few rounds of betting and bigger on the later rounds, like a fixed limit game.

None taken, I know I am by no means playing brilliantly and have a lot to learn about stud high.

As for your point about making money on the 3:1 guy getting 7:1, I understand what you mean, but I was thinking more in terms of multiple opponents schooling/horse racing, where the best hand is still a dog to the field.

When you start with the best hand virtually every single time, and somebody or other chases it down almost every single time (while the antes gnaw steadily away inbetween playable hands), it's hard not to develop a feeling of hopelessness about the game.

If by "dog" you mean <50% equity, you can still get +EV since you are getting more than 1:1 on each bet you put in. If you mean that you have <25% equity in a 4-way pot for instance, then I think you need to relearn what the "best" hand is.

This is actually kind of common in 7cs though, where you can have each individual person beaten, but have less than 1/N equity against all of them. Maybe it's wrong to call this "the best hand" but none of your opponents really has a hand that's better than yours. I'm guessing his point is that you can try to avoid these situations in spread-limit games by making it hard for drawing hands to draw, before you get to 5th and your hand becomes a dog to the field.

+1

Spread-limit poker sucks rocks.

First of all, a disclaimer: Even though I've been playing 7cs for about 25 years, I still have lots of days where I play like I've been playing for only 25 days.

Having gotten my admitted suckitude out of the way, let me just offer that my belief is that these monkey boys you speak of are the guys that are supposed to pay us, right?

I went through a long period where I swore off limit poker, because I was tired of "donkeys" who always "sucked out on me." This was (obviously) before I really had any clue what I was doing.

But this sucking out happens in any limit, any structure, any game. That's why it's ultimately gambling. The question is this: if it's a given that from time to time some clown is going to suck out on the river, would you rather him swallow one extra bet, or would you rather him swallow your entire stack (or a much bigger portion thereof)?

Or, more bluntly, if you make mistakes - like I do - when you play, do you want that mistake to cost you one bet, or a whole lot more?

(edit: i do realize you are talking about spread limit as opposed to no limit, but the concept is the same, i.e. any kind of betting that increases at a rate of more than one big bet)