PLO has taken over the live games in my city casinos.

A while back there started to have a 1-2 half nlhe game and half PLO. Eventually the game became 1-2 PLO because who the hell wants to play with 2 cards when you could have 4. Often times players would agree to the 5$ straddle every hand and we had a nice game going! The problem came when some players would sit down and refuse to straddle, motivating others to stop straddling and we're back to playing 1-2. How tilting!


Someone came up with the suggestion that the winner of the last pot pays the straddle of the player in the UTG for the next hand. The nits who didn't want to straddle now don't mind because they arent paying for it. Now we can play our decently big game without being straddle blocked by nits who sit in. Great times!


However, I feel like this structure rewards people for buying short and playing tight and punishes the loose aggressive players that are playing many pots. Am I wrong with this line of thinking? Sometimes I feel none of this matters and that 5$ straddle doesn't really exist as it gets passed around every hand so maybe it doesnt penalize LAG players. I'm not sure.

Also I'm trying to change the game to 1-2 plo w 5$ bring in. Max raise in unopened pots would be 15$ instead of 20$ for the winner-pays-straddle game. How do you think this would affect the game if we went to bring in?


Thx for your thoughts

It sounds like the perfect solution would be to ask your room's management if they would allow a "rock."

Playing a game with a rock means that the person who just won the last pot must post an amount which is typically 2x the BB (same amount as straddle) and action begins clockwise (to the left of) this person. With a 1-2 game playing with a $5 rock obvs makes more sense than a $4 rock due to pot size rounding. It is called a "rock" because the number of chips needed to make the rock are rubber banded up (in your case 5x $1 cheques) and these banded chips are just placed back out after being pushed the pot.

So the winner of the last pot effectively is forced to give money to the next UTG. I would imagine that such a set up would be against most gaming regulations.

Not to mention the fact that a player objecting to the past suggestion of winner-straddle sure as heck isn't going to agree to putting up $5 for some other guy.

Just have them play 2-5 instead.

I've never really understood why the sort of person who thinks the game sucks without a straddle just doesn't play a higher limit rather than try to tinker with the rules.

This, and if they complain about 10$ straddles because people aren't comfortable playing that big, just say no straddles.

3 blinds is quite a bit better but your side obviously has merit depending on how things are handled.

There has been a "rock" before in some bigger games. They are not going to be implementing a rock style game for the 1-2 plo. I agree it would be a great solution. Thx for the input

I don;t object to a three blind game.

but the point is that if you want to play $2 $5 $10 why not just play $2 $5 $10 rather calling it $2-$5 with a straddle.


The obvious answer is you want to lure in peopel who are seeking a game of a certain size and then spring a bigger game on them. But if you do that you really can;t complain that they don't want to play the bigger game .... you were trying to trick them.

You are right- it is against regulation. The dealer is only reminding players and everyone agrees with it. Since the game up on the board is 1-2 WPS no one objects to it. The nits who didn't want tO straddle every orbit are ok with it because they win so few pots so they feel like they aren't paying as much.

A 2-5 game (w min buying 200$ instead of 100$) isn't going to run. I know thats stupid but people are more willing to play 1-2 WPS then 2-5. That's why I was considering changing it to 1-2 bring in 5 instead. So it can still be considered a "1-2".

There is not a higher limit available at my casino. It used to be 1-2 nlhe and 2-5 nlhe but it's changed to 1-2 nlhe and 1-2 plo now.

This is not the same as 2/5, it is a game that just uses a dummy 5$ chip (or basically you can use nothing) to play a 5$ BB game while posting 1/2 instead of 2/5, in addition to action changes, i.e, SB, then BB, then finally UTG. This is because nobody will win these 5$ as long as the game is going on, and it will remain in the middle.

No one has thoughts about the impact of WPS on the profitability of tight short stack play?

I sit down to a 1-2. I win a pot. The dealer tells me I have to put $5 straddle out for the UTG and I tell the dealer to shove it. What is he going to do?

And if you don't think a nit who sat there for 40 minutes before he entered a pot and then drug a huge $30 pot is going to like posting $5 for someone else, you don't know nits.

But if enough people want to play bigger the casino would spread the bigger game. Maybe the truth is that its a small (but vocal) group you are hearing that want a mandatory straddle.

I think it is more that the straddle creates action.

This. I never got the logic behind this.

Higher limits (to an extent) are almost always available. If a casino doesn't spread a particular limit, it's almost always because that casino just usually doesn't get enough interest for it. If a floor has an entire table of people that wants to play 2-5, they usually will.

No one has ever refused. That's not the issue here.

You are right. They will spread whatever players want. There is not enough interest for a 2-5plo game

But if there is all this support for a game with a mandatory straddle why don;t those players want to play higher?

No interest for a 2-5 PLO game but an entire table wants to play 1-2 PLO with a mandatory $5 straddle?

lol poker players

Or maybe the whole table doesn;t want the straddle. A couple of vocal players want, some are ambivalent, and others say ok but are more than happy that someone else is saying no becaus ethey don;t want to be the one to have to say no.

I mean, I agree with you, but there is a LITTLE merit to the fact that the buyins for 1-2 are generally lower than 2-5 and adding a straddle just makes play shallower

I can tell you from experience the rock changes things a lot because it doubles the price of limping and preflop raises are twice as big which essentially means you're playing 2-5. If people are buying in for the min then the game becomes incredibly short stacked. Another thing it does is mess up positional play. You might be on the button but be first to act pre. This tends to lessen the advantage you might have on positionally unaware players.

Another thing to keep in mind is that people are playing 1-2 not 2-5 for a reason. For the losing players this is what there budget can afford. You might be able to convince them that a rock is no big deal but when they start losing 2-5 money they'll notice it and start dropping out of the game.

Yes, but it's the loose aggressive ones that want this and seemingly this is the only way to get it so pay or change it.

A rock is a great solution and much better than forcing someone to put up a straddle for someone else. I have no idea how you convinced everyone to play this WPS stuff. I guess LOLOmaha.

a rock is way better than this