where can i play?

wtf

arizona

in california maybe

have u tried california yet?

[ ] humans want to play this game
[x] you want to play this game
[x] therefore, you are not human

why would you not want to play this game?

http://www.thepokerblog.net/2006/01/...fornia-holdem/

is cali holdem that really dumb game that was created to test bots or something?

something like that

i think the game will just bias certain cards (like favoring pocket pairs). i don't actually think it adds any much more skill to the game.

people trying too hard and failing w/ new ideas, gg.

Why would more cards make it more skill?

obv 72 gets wrose because of more over pairs..

I can really only seeing that having a really small effect for wen the board pairs with 11 11 or 12 12.

All i see happening is play gets differnt...Obv pp's are much steeper now and 66 becomes complete trash and other current mid PPs. Its only going to change the ranges people play. Also hands become less frequent like AA will come every 250 hands and what not....

http://www.thepokerblog.net/2006/02/...a-holdem-pt-1/

what is up with this unsuited cards business

if someone ever comes up with a hold em' variation that genuinely requires more skill - i don't know how this could be done - and relies less on luck, I'd be all for it... but adding cards to the deck is not the answer. that will simply change game dynamics with little impact on skill/luck factor.

EDIT: I read another one of his articles - and he said an additional purpose of adding cards to the deck involved lowering drawing odds for opponents. Again, this does not make the game more skillful - from this respect it changes the game dynamic once again and may slightly lower variance.

What a ******ed game.

on PAD, doyle and tom dwan were talking about "greek hold 'em" with i think the only difference being that you must use both of your hole cards to make your 5 card hand. they seemed to imply it was a slightly better game than texas hold em

all i need for strange poker games is pineapple, tyvm

this guy just got drawn out on a lot imo, make new game cos he is tilting

I was moving into a new house this week and came across a box of California Hold'em decks. Got a bit nostalgic.

I created this game in 2005. I tried to get it off the ground, but it didn't take. (That brings joy to many who despised the concept of a modified deck game.)

It's been a good eighteen months since I actively marketed the game and since then I've progressed from an Advanced Intermediate to Expertish player. I play California Hold'em in home games and whereas the game is a great variant, I now see that it was a mistake to try to sell the game as an improvement. It's just different, in the way that Omaha or Stud is different. (I've had many players tell me their favorite use for the California Hold'em deck is playing Omaha.)

There's virtually no chance of the game making any kind of comeback, but I do want to stick up for it. A lot of top pros were big fans. They never said so publicly, because they wanted endorsement money, but I had icons tell me they broke out their decks from time to time and loved the variation. I had one of the top legends tell me he wished I would run tournaments because he believed it would be effective at weeding out some of the suckers. Sadly (maybe for me only) I never got enough traction to get there.

At the very least, I got to play the game with some of the biggest names and that was very cool. It was online or awhile and I'd say about 30% of players didn't really get it, 70% enjoyed it and 20% preferred it to Texas Hold'em, since it does put a premium on calculating pot odds, playing position, etc. (You get murdered playing crazy.)

At the end of the day, it's a great tournament game. I regularly host tournaments where we play California Hold'em until the final table, then shift to Texas Hold'em. You tend to see far fewer donkeys at the Final Table.

If a 7,000 player tournament like the Main Event were played this way, I believe you'd see 30 or 40 known pros in the final 100. You'd probably have 4 or 5 at the final table.

Post-mortem: Was it a bad idea? I'd have to say demonstrably yes, because I lost a fair bit of money on it. But from the standpoint of whether or not it's a viable, fun alternative game, I'd say it was/is. Most people I know believe it's as enjoyable and as unique to play as Stud or Omaha.

Anyway... Was just feeling a bit nostalgic for my failed attempt to introduce the game. It was never meant to be a gimmick or get rich quick scheme. It was always meant to be a game that tested a different set of skills in a different way and I believe it achieved that.

Glad I tried.

just want to have it noted that i was first in this thread nearly 2 months ago....


and i still have no idea WHHAAATTT THHHEEEE FUUUCCKKK IS GOING ONNNNN

I invented a hold'em variation in 2005. Tried and failed to get it adopted. It's a custom deck (60 cards instead of 52) that has four 11s and four 12s added into a traditional deck, between the 10s and Jacks. The 10s and the 11s have no suit printed on them. Other than that it's the same as a regular deck.

The addition of the eight extra cards and the removal of suit from the 10s and 11s changes the dynamics of the game. It is harder to suck out if you're drawing, since there are more cards in the deck won't improve your hand. So if you draw without proper odds, you're going to be punished more often. The game pretty dramatically changes flushes. There are fewer suited cards dealt pre-flop and far fewer chances to make your flush.

It was on a site that folded right after the 2006 Internet Gaming legislation and I didn't have the cash to put into marketing it widely. The game came and went.

There tf.

Was your top pro Phil Hellmuth?