Can some one explain to me how this game works.
I love playing PLO but I've heard of this game and it sounds too fun. Wanna try it in a home game.

Five hole cards.

Betting is (usually) Pot Limit.

Use two from your hand, three from the board.

It plays 8-or-better.

If you're unfamiliar with 8-or-better... Pot is split between the best high hand, and the best low hand. The low hand is defined as the lowest five unique ranks 8 or lower. Ace is low for this half (but is either high or low for the high half). Hands are read high-to-low to determine the lowest hand.

It helps if you convert it to a number, and award the pot to the lowest number. For example, A3842 compared against 34257 can be converted to 84,321 and 75,432 respectively. 75,432 wins the low.

The game plays super huge. We had to stop playing this game in our home game because it breaks all the players. I suggest playing this w a cap if your game is friendly.

Or Fixed Limit.

In my very limited experience, caps make me play more than without caps. I figure we just hit the cap and run it out, so I play more hands since I don't have the threat of future betting. It's kind of like how Pot Limit plays bigger than No Limit.

Fixed Limit is wonderful for home games, and lets you play whatever you want without worrying that the games are imbalanced. 1/2 NLHE mixed with 1/2 PLO? That's going to be a disaster. 3/6 FLHE mixed with 3/6 FLO? Works perfectly!

Sadly, the adrenaline junkies don't want to play such a slow game, and they don't realize that they actually get to play more poker with more people for longer periods of time, and that everybody has more fun and wants to play again. It's a classic case of not wanting what's good for you.

Boy your on a fixed Limit kick tonight. Not knocking at all since it's my favorite form of poker just kinda funny.


Also noticed you've been posting more recently. Good to have the kitty back.

Sent from my SPH-L720

Heh, yeah. Thanks! I've been dealing more poker lately. I tend to stop posting when I'm not involved with poker at all.

Last night I had a table of 1/2 NL players whining about how stupid and boring FL poker is. Most of the 1/2 tables are usually almost dead quiet, except when loudmouths start bragging about their mad poker skillz, y0.

I finally got to the 3/6 FL table, and it was delight, start to finish. Even the 2/4 tables are non-stop light-hearted chatter. Hardly anybody is ever in a bad mood, and people rarely leave feeling humiliated and defeated, the way they usually leave the 1/2 NL.

I think in the long run it's harder to "feel" like a big winner at FL, which might be why people convince themselves it's beneath them. Or they're adrenaline junkies. Or something. I dunno, many theories. I enjoy all forms of poker, but FL is a far more sustainable game, except for the fact that people are easily seduced by NL.

Then again, the roulette tables are always full, and people scream for the dragon 7 bets in baccarat, which is perhaps the worst odds in the house.

Big O is one of those games where if the players don't understand just how bad the swings can be and are willing to accept it, they don't need to be playing it.

Omaha in and of itself tends to be a chasing game the way a lot of ppl play it. Throw in a fifth card and it gets even worse. As a friend of mine once put it, "I could make so many hands...".

That being said I love it and it's my prefered game. I've also seen some game breaking hands in it (like a five way all in on the flop in a six person game that was scooped by one person).

So I would suggest introducing it as either fixed limit or with a betting cap unless you know your players can handle it played Pot Limit.

We play lots of variations of Omaha, including Big-O, hi low, and multiple boards. If it wasn't spread limit (max 10BB bets/raises), our game would have lasted 1 night.

We play 1-2 fixed limit, and have a very interesting variation on Big O. We call it Big O 52. It plays exactly like Big O 8 or better, but you can either use 2 from your hand, or all 5. It adds a very interesting element, because if someone is betting a high board you don't know if it is because he has a low in hand, or actually a good high hand. I've flopped a full house, only to run into dealt quads.

My best was having a 6432A in hand, and rivering the nut flush - and having it capped on all streets by 4-5 players.

THAT'S AWESOME.

I'm a big fan of Criss-Cross. No, not Iron Cross.

Five cards each, two complete boards. Split pot hi/lo.

You can use two in your hand and either board (no mixing), or three in your hand and go up-down across the board (ie, use both turns, or both of the middle flop cards). Gotta be careful you deal the two flops the same way, tho'.

Work out how many hand combinations there are per player.

Sands runs Big O 1/3 time to time. I've never played but it seems like a game for adrenaline junkies, I find it hard to fold a hand in Omaha as it is. Probably a great time if you are running hot.

we play a lot of weird omaha games, with various numbers of cards

one of my favourites is something we call SWINGERS, which is basically big O with a twist. After the pf betting and before the flop, each player passes 2 cards face down to the player on his right and 2 to the player on his left, while keeping one card, and then receiving 2 from each side. Anyone sober enough to remember the cards they've passed gets a huge edge.

thx for that criss-cross idea, i'll definitely try that next week, and then we'll be ready for..... CRISS-CROSS-SWINGERS !!!!!

Could I get some clarification / examples on a betting structure that is "capped"? We spread NL, PL & FL & I know in FL we have the traditional bet & 3 raises on any street. In other words, betting is capped at a bet + 3 raises.

Is there a structure that still has the NL or PL "Big Bet" element but also has a cap or is the capped structure, referred to in this thread, one that is part of FL structure?

I want to explore this on that infamous podcast, much maligned but still going strong after almost 4 years.

Thanks

There can be a cap with NL/PL if NE desired to implement one. Generally when that is the case you can set a dollar amount or BB amount we usually picked a number between 100-200bb depending on the stakes we were playing. The idea is then you can only lose a certain amount per hand. We started playing Omaha this way with my home game group and gave everyone a good chance to learn the game without losing a ton.

Say your cap is $100 in a $1/$1 NLHE game. Player A has $350 in front of them and Player B has $250 in a normal game stacks are effectively 250bb. However, in a capped game then their stacks are a maximum of 100bb no matter how deep they actually get. Once betting has reached the cap players are considered all in and there is no more action.

I will say that the game does play differently when you know that a person can only bet so much more on a later street since they are at the cap. This leads to more calls and showdowns as opposed to when the game is uncapped and your whole stack is at risk.

Hope this helps.

It does help, thanks.

I brought this up at a regular home game last night & received 2 different scenarios, I guess either one could be adopted but wondered about any preference or draw backs.

Scenario One: Was the same as in the reply. A cap of $100 is set and once your participation reaches $100 out of your stack you can see the hand though to the finish without risking any more $$$

Scenario Two: The cap was on the size of the pot. In other words, if you had that same $100 benchmark, all further betting would cease once the pot TOTALED $100.

Any feedback?

We've only ever done #1. In scenario #2 there could be an issues. Say for example the pot cap is $100 and going to the turn there is $60 in the pot. Player A now bets $40. Pot is now $100. What happens to Player B? Or if you have a third player in. Even if you let them call pot is now $140 or $180 which is much bigger than the $100 pot cap.

With a pot cap, played multi-way, you will get more action, as the more players, the less each has to contribute to reach the cap. It depends on whether you want that or not.

For example, if the pot on the flop is $30, someone bets $20, and there is a call, the pot is $70. If I call, it is $90, only $10 from the cap. Now it is a call fest behind me.

It's this example I am having trouble wrapping my head around - If the pot is capped @ $100 and your action brings it to $90 and say there are still 2 more players to act, do they still get full equity in the pot if they each put in only $5 more to reach the $100?

I've never heard of a cap on the total size of the pot. Doesn't sound like it would work for reasons you state. The only way it would make sense is if no betting or raising was allowed once the cap was reached, but calls were.

seems like you could also cap it (per player) per street: preflop and flop, $40 cap. turn and river, $100 per player.

The only time I've been in a capped game it was the "effective stacks" style. Seems like there was some trick where the dealer kept one player's bets isolated from the rest of the pot to show how close the cap was getting.

Yeah the more I'm thinking about it a pot cap would not be good for the game/players.

Regarding the cap per street suggestion that essentially sounds like a spread limit game with different limits on streets. That is one another solution that is viable.

I'm pretty good at math and usually can keep track of the pot/how close to the individual caps we are at if I'm paying attention so I don't do anything extra. However, one of the other hosts keeps a stack of the cap amount separate from his entire stack and bets/calls from only that stack in a given hand. He will then top off the stack after a hand. Works pretty well for him and is a backup if I'm not paying attention.


Suggestion: This "capped" betting discussion is a semi-thread derail as I find it most applicable to Omaha, but is very interesting and could play to other games as well. Perhaps this could use its own thread?

Yeah, it would have to be capped at $100 or whatever it takes to complete the current action. In other words, once it hits $100, the players who have called the bet are all in, but anyone who still owes the pot would have to call to be all-in. But no more raising.

But...I wouldn't cap the pot anyway.

And this is why current Florida poker law is so stupid. For a home game to be legal under current law, you can't win more than $10 in a single hand. It's not capped pot, it's capped profit.

That means the per-player cap would be (10 / (n-1)) dollars for an n-player game, e.g. $2.50 for five-handed play. That wasn't even reasonable when they enacted this law 30-some years ago, and it's just ridiculous today.

Or do they consider any money put into the pot "lost." If you buy a $1 lottery ticket and win $10, they say you won $10, not $9, or $8 if you bought two tickets.

Truly, in both cases, it ain't your money any longer. It belongs to the pot.

Honestly, if it's so close that the money you put in the pot is a determining factor in whether or not you won more than ten bucks, you almost certainly aren't getting prosecuted.

It's more about the idiocy of home games being legal only at unrealistic stakes because of a badly written law.

Well, there is that.