Because it doesn't in the variant stars offers, even though the math suggests it should.

Actually, unimproved high card (no pair on the board) is more unlikely than trips or a straight.

For obvious reasons, the game does not exactly follow the math.

This felt like PLO but more boring version of it. Could imagine playing it in part of some mixed game. I wish they would advertise some game like NL 2-7 draw more instead.

People are playing this right up to $3k buyin right now. Seems like a lot of action.

It looks like they lowered the max buy-in to 150 antes

Oh right. For some reason thought it was PL preflop and NL postflop, huh.

Currently

the bb/100 raked will be higher because more people to the flop, similar to lowstakes plo, which is nearly unbeatable. whether it will bust fish quicker bc higher variance , which leads to less rake for the site, idk. i dont think thats what the poster was implying when he said more rake bc of high variance

That game looks like the biggest raketrap of stars ever, equities run very close and skill gap is small, it's hard for even a whale to butcher that much a hand for that much EV to mitigate the rake effect.

Obv some wizards will study this game and make a little bit until people catch up, after that I think it will be very hard to beat the rake even on a soft game

I try this new variant on PokerStars, it is quite fun!

It looks like a fun game to try with lots of action.

Will pokertracker be implementing a patch to properly track this?

Sounds like what people say about PLO yet its super easy to make mistakes in preflop hand selection and postflop overvaluing regular NLHE hands.

Skill gap probably is smaller than PLO which is why if PLO isn't the game of the future then 6+ is. Easier to understand for new players without the requirement to play exactly 2 cards from your hand as in Omaha. A lot of the fun of Omaha is the gamble and getting to make strong hands frequently, so all of that is preserved in 6+.

And the fact this game has been going strong with both wizards and mega-whales at the highest stakes in Asia for years empirically disproves your claim that it will cease to be beatable. If that were true, the wizards would've stopped crushing the fish or the fish would've gotten too crushed.

I realised the issue the other day when I randomly bumped into a PokerStars staff member, and they mentioned this thread.

My comments here were in the context of rake efficiency relative to the amount deposited. Various others in this thread are looking at it in terms of rake efficiency per hand. I suspect that in per hand levels, it might well have higher rake (because pots are bigger). However, a player who has a budget of $X per week or month or session is going to pay less rake, 'cause they'll go bust faster (and thus, pay less rake per deposit).

Perhaps this is a way to reconcile the two views.

I think you're confusing edge and variance.

Fun game! However with the rake being around 30bb/100 (micros) and the high variance you have to be very good to beat it.

I'd love to play the tournaments of this , but cash games is a hell no. You can't beat rake, especially when you get zero rakeback.