Rules:

- Flush beats a full house
- Straight still beats trips
- A6789 is a lower straight

- All games played with an ante.
- Button posts a 2nd ante which acts as only blind

More details here: https://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-roo...em-real-money/

Interesting that they choose straight beats trips. I guess its easier to understand for rec, and I think the Chinese play it like this. Are there any good strategy articles about this game?

Nothing advanced that I know of. Figure it out and enjoy the absence of better regs while it lasts I wish I'd had enough work ethic to do so when Blast appeared at 888

Interesting game seems like a good addition. Watched the Asian guys play this on Youtube with Dwan and others and seemed like it played a lot crazier than typical Hold Em. Do you think that's because of the the nature of the game with equities running closer together in a lot of spots or just the wealthy Asians being degens?

Short Deck Poker Odds and Probabilities

Short Deck Poker Beginners Strategy

There's a bunch of pokerstars school strategy articles too on 6+

The variants between straight vs trips change more than you'd think for me of how I'd play this game. 6+ is more action because you get a lot less junk preflop and AA is still the best pre but not as dominant as regular holdem. It's more like omaha's AA.

Straights beating Trips variant is way better action too.

where is it at then?

Oh sorry, I forgot to mention, currently its available only in Denmark, Estonian and play money client. It will be released worldwide later today.

Due to its' high variance a perfect game for stars to suck up the rake even faster

I really don't understand why they would want to introduce more easily solvable and bottable games. You'd have to be crazy to play this game for any real money online.

This is ignorant, and makes no sense. A game operator makes more rake when the variance is less, not when it is more. DUCY?

I don't CY.

Basically the only thing that matters is the $money deposited x (proportion between rake and winrate of net winners).

And if we assume that the rake and winrate are constant then high variance might increase number of net depositors as their chance of having a winning session increase.

What am I missing here?

Imagine two simple games, each with two players and $100 each ($200 total). They play until a player(s) have gone bust.

Game A: Maximum variance, players are equally balanced. Players simply flip a coin one time, and winner takes everything. Operator takes $1 per hand. First hand takes place, one player wins all the money.

Results:
Player A: $199 (+$99)
Player B: $0 (-$100)
Operator: $1 (+$1)

Game B: No variance, players are equally balanced. Players simply flip a coin over and over, with the only EV loss being to the rake. Operator takes $1 per hand. 200 hands take place, operator wins all the money.

Results:
Player A: $0 (-$100)
Player B: $0 (-$100)
Operator: $200 (+$200)


Obviously, this is an extremist example simply to show the impact of variance on rake. You could create a more "realistic" example (eg, compare how much rake is created before everyone goes bust in a 1,000 person double-or-nothing, vs a normal payout 1,000 MTT).

fake math

I think in this model assumptions are so completely wrong that the conclusions are worthless.

- If the casino offered only these two games then nobody would ever play game B. So the casino would make $1 in the first case and 0$ in the second making higher variance game better for the casino.

- The model assumes that player A wouldn't keep playing with the money he won and that Player B wouldn't redeposit.

Here is my model which is an extremist simple example to show that there is NO impact of variance on rake.

Imagine a game with the better player having +5 per hand winrate and the site getting +5 rake (so the losing player has -10 EV per hand).

Game A has higher variance with the payouts:
(+30, -35)
(-20, +15)

Game B has lower variance with the payouts:
(+15, -20)
(+10, -15)
(-10, +5)

If you run experiments with different starting stack of a losing player he will last on average exactly stack / 10 hands giving half of his money to rake and half to the winner.

Really - it's a typical application of EV(X+Y) = EV(X) + EV(Y) . If the weaker player loses on average 5 chips to the winner and 5 chips to the casino then irrelevant from the variance or any other variables his loses will be evenly shared between a winner and the site.

So the winners should only care about winrate / rake ratio and about having formats appealing to the net depositors.

With the sky high rake on the site I couldn't be arsed learning a new game to be honest.

In Josem's example game A and B are actually the same game, just game A has 100x the stakes. Obv you go busto faster with one buyin as opposed to 100 buyins. Yep, I am too lazy to decipher it in more detail now, but this seems wrong

more solvable i get it, more bottable ?

Yes.

wow, good for them with straights beating trips, that is key

This version is much better action as many more hands are playable

I write for CardPlayer and a series of mine on Short Deck just started so perfect timing. Alas only first installment is free online


https://www.cardplayer.com/cardplaye...t-deck-hold-em

Yeah, even though trips is less likely over a full board of hold’em, the playability of straights and how straights often don’t block trips and full houses makes the game so much more lively and exciting.

6+ now live in UK, Sweden, and all countries on pokerstars.com or pokerstars.eu


What's most interesting to me is the stakes - they are spread from $4 buy-in up to $40,000. That's equivalent of 2c/4c to $200/$400 at NL or PLO, the absolute max they spread these days.

It is also fixed at 200 ante buyin. Not sure how that compares to e.g. 100BB buy-ins at sb/bb structure games, but it's certainly not shallow.

That big a spread up to the high stakes seems to indicate PS are pretty confident that they will fill these player pools. I don't think Unfold/Fusion/Split etc went above maybe $5/10 or $10/$20?


I think the other big thing with this is it could be a huge hit with streaming because it looks exactly like Hold'em, so viewers are going to be feel instantly familiar. action even on one table is going to be pretty non-stop, with 7 antes in the pot each hand i assume correct strategy is a very high VPIP.