DC Help for Rexas

[BangBang]

Yeah, I'm kinda hoping that stu and dave notice this and come out with some ridic wisdom, as they tend to :p I'm only just starting to feel like I'm appreciating the intricacies of being a winning Omaha player, literally really as of yesterday, and I've found myself filled with a renewed enthusiasm for poker in general, as if I'm on the brink of a massive epiphany

Stu is a superstud, just sayin'

FYP

I am happy to discuss DC games with you Matt, but privately not on this thread. I can teach you the basics of all the main games. After that you've got to play lots to get a more nuanced understanding (and perhaps then I can help you further if you are nice to me).

Adam, the offer I made you several months ago re Superstud in particular still stands. Take me up on it whenever you are ready.

For anyone interested in getting into DC, the most important games to learn are Omaha, Omaha High Low, Padooki and Superstud. Some schools play a wide variety of other games, occasionally even including wild cards and/or more than one flop. But I'd advise focusing on the four staple games in the first instance and only work on the rarer variants when it becomes necessary.

Omaha High Low is by far the easiest game of the four to become competent at, since it is strategically the simplest. After that it is probably Omaha, then Padooki, then Superstud. Each game requires its own unique set of skills to play well though.

I strongly disagree, I'd say it's Omaha hi then Stud.  

Play these games deep on deep tables (most variants are pot limit/limit anyway) and don't drink any stimulants while playing these games as they're usually slower then regular PLO or NLHE.  DTD has some great DC players, you should sit down with one of them and pick their brains...

[rfgqqabc]

Yeah, I'm kinda hoping that stu and dave notice this and come out with some ridic wisdom, as they tend to :p I'm only just starting to feel like I'm appreciating the intricacies of being a winning Omaha player, literally really as of yesterday, and I've found myself filled with a renewed enthusiasm for poker in general, as if I'm on the brink of a massive epiphany

Stu is a superstud, just sayin'

FYP

I am happy to discuss DC games with you Matt, but privately not on this thread. I can teach you the basics of all the main games. After that you've got to play lots to get a more nuanced understanding (and perhaps then I can help you further if you are nice to me).

Adam, the offer I made you several months ago re Superstud in particular still stands. Take me up on it whenever you are ready.

For anyone interested in getting into DC, the most important games to learn are Omaha, Omaha High Low, Padooki and Superstud. Some schools play a wide variety of other games, occasionally even including wild cards and/or more than one flop. But I'd advise focusing on the four staple games in the first instance and only work on the rarer variants when it becomes necessary.

Omaha High Low is by far the easiest game of the four to become competent at, since it is strategically the simplest. After that it is probably Omaha, then Padooki, then Superstud. Each game requires its own unique set of skills to play well though.

Today is that day, exams are done, I have no more excuses (well a few), but I will pm shortly. I'd imagine 4o h/l deep is more complex than omaha. I imagine Padooki to be the easiest. This only from general stuff I have read and I'm certainly not saying your opinion is wrong. I will write a proper pm tomorrow probably, going to get SMASHED shortly.

BangBang, Honeybader is perhaps THE GUY when it comes to DC. He is certainly regarded by many as such, and plays regularly in the DC games at dtd.

[BangBang]

Yeah, I'm kinda hoping that stu and dave notice this and come out with some ridic wisdom, as they tend to :p I'm only just starting to feel like I'm appreciating the intricacies of being a winning Omaha player, literally really as of yesterday, and I've found myself filled with a renewed enthusiasm for poker in general, as if I'm on the brink of a massive epiphany

Stu is a superstud, just sayin'

FYP

I am happy to discuss DC games with you Matt, but privately not on this thread. I can teach you the basics of all the main games. After that you've got to play lots to get a more nuanced understanding (and perhaps then I can help you further if you are nice to me).

Adam, the offer I made you several months ago re Superstud in particular still stands. Take me up on it whenever you are ready.

For anyone interested in getting into DC, the most important games to learn are Omaha, Omaha High Low, Padooki and Superstud. Some schools play a wide variety of other games, occasionally even including wild cards and/or more than one flop. But I'd advise focusing on the four staple games in the first instance and only work on the rarer variants when it becomes necessary.

Omaha High Low is by far the easiest game of the four to become competent at, since it is strategically the simplest. After that it is probably Omaha, then Padooki, then Superstud. Each game requires its own unique set of skills to play well though.

Today is that day, exams are done, I have no more excuses (well a few), but I will pm shortly. I'd imagine 4o h/l deep is more complex than omaha. I imagine Padooki to be the easiest. This only from general stuff I have read and I'm certainly not saying your opinion is wrong. I will write a proper pm tomorrow probably, going to get SMASHED shortly.

BangBang, Honeybader is perhaps THE GUY when it comes to DC. He is certainly regarded by many as such, and plays regularly in the DC games at dtd.

TBF I'd never play DC at DTD anyway, I'm impatient and get tilted when 3 people go for a smoke together, usually killing or slowing down the game.  Never played DC with Stu but heard good things.. Enjoy your day..

[Honeybadger]

How is hi-lo simpler than straight hi? Straight hi is also closest to nlhe.

I strongly disagree, I'd say it's Omaha hi then Stud.

Okay, I am going to explain why Omaha High Low is much easier to become fairly competent at than any of the other common DC games. I am also going to rant a bit about why I think High Low is not a very good game (even though I really enjoy it!)

The primary reason is that the basic strategy for High Low is very, very simple compared to most other games. And it can be learned really quickly. You know the sort of thing:

1. Play to scoop the pot.
2. Avoid being freerolled, and thus...
3. Don't overplay bare nut lows or bare nut highs, especially OOP.

There are a few more complicated points, but tbh from an overall strategic point of view there is not that much more to High Low than this. Not to play it fairly competently anyway.

The vast majority of High Low played in DC games in the UK is of the 5 or 6 card variety, with almost every pot going multiway. This just makes it an even simpler game in which you really don't need to know a great deal more than the very basic strategy. You have to learn how to value your hands of course - this is the most important skill in High Low. But this is really easy compared to other games, once you have got over the initial hurdle of learning how the split pot aspect works. And you need some hand-reading ability too, but again it is much easier to develop the requisite hand-reading skills compared to other games. One effect of the bi-directionality of the game is that 'advanced' hand-reading skills actually become less important.

If you were playing in short-handed and aggressive 4 card High Low games then merely understanding the simple basic strategy would not suffice. You would need to develop a more nuanced strategic understanding of the game. You would also need better hand reading skills; in fact better poker skills full stop. This is because you would actually have to 'play poker'.

But I have rarely found myself playing 4 card High Low in a short-handed aggressive game. And these advanced skills are largely unnecessary when playing multicard High Low where most pots are multiway. It is really, really simple to learn how to beat these sort of games.

In fact, I would argue that once you have reached a base level of competence at High Low, no-one can have too much of an edge over you in the sort of games that prevail in most DC schools. You could have the best High Low player in the world sitting in your game and he is not going to have a massive edge over you. Moreover, his edge against the weak players is not going to be all that much bigger than yours either. Basically High Low players are divided into two categories: those who understand and can rigorously implement the simple basic strategy, and those who cannot. The first group win from the second group with relatively little variance. There is far less room for different styles, or flair, or advanced skills than in the other games.

In fact, High Low is not even much of a game - or at least it would not be if everyone had basic competency at it. Put me in a No Limit Hold'em game with seven players who are much stronger than me and I will get destroyed, even though I play it fairly competently. Put me in a High Low game with seven much stronger poker players than me and we will just pass money round between us, with me losing a little bit on the rare occasions when the stronger players manage to find an opportunity to outplay me. And the game would be terrible... a conspiracy of tightness.

The only reason Omaha High Low plays so well in the DC mix is because many players do not understand this at all. They see it is an 'action game', when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. And they make massive fundamental errors again and again and again. It is - in a sense - a 'trick' designed to separate the weak players from their money quite quickly and with very few swings. In principle therefore I think it is a terrible game since it does not give the weak players any type of a punchers chance, compared to something like 4 card PLO which really does. But most weak players seem to really enjoy the game. Perhaps they feel a bit safer and that they lose their money more slowly since they usually have some sort of chance to get half or a quarter of the pot. It is an illusion of course - they may not regularly be having their entire stack wiped out in one hand, but they are still being bled to death... and pretty quickly too! Yet it is an illusion which allows them to enjoy the game and feel comfortable in it.

It is so easy to view (high only) PLO as being 'a bit like Hold'em' and thus imagine that this will be the easiest game to learn how to play fairly competently if you come from a Hold'em background. This is incorrect in my opinion. PLO strategy is pretty complicated and involved, and there are substantial differences between PLO and NLHE. Even learning how to play good 'basic' PLO in multiway pots (i.e. not using many 'poker skills') will take a fair while for someone from a strictly Hold'em background. Yet the basic strategy for High Low is really simple, and is really simple to learn. A good Hold'em player can become a passable High Low player much more quickly than s/he can become a passable PLO player.

[mulhuzz]

what a post. nailed it.

[wazz]

I don't know, I sorta disagree. First of all, it seems strange to me that a game that encompasses all the skillsets of another game could be seen as more simple. Yes, PLO8 affords you fewer opportunities to handread, but there will still be spots where there is no low and there are spots to handread how strong someones low is or whether they have one at all. Secondly, the skills of learning how to value your hand just aren't that easy, or more people would in fact play a lot tighter, and winning players would call it a lot more than they do.

You could feasibly say the same thing about 6-card PLO, that it's a conspiracy of tightness, and yes, it does reward tighter play than 4card PLO, but that doesn't mean winning players have a higher edge.

[Honeybadger]

I don't know, I sorta disagree. First of all, it seems strange to me that a game that encompasses all the skillsets of another game could be seen as more simple. Yes, PLO8 affords you fewer opportunities to handread, but there will still be spots where there is no low and there are spots to handread how strong someones low is or whether they have one at all. Secondly, the skills of learning how to value your hand just aren't that easy, or more people would in fact play a lot tighter, and winning players would call it a lot more than they do.

You could feasibly say the same thing about 6-card PLO, that it's a conspiracy of tightness, and yes, it does reward tighter play than 4card PLO, but that doesn't mean winning players have a higher edge.

I have emboldened the key bit Michael

Not going to spend any more time on this though. I have given my argument; anyone can disagree if they like. But they should probably spend a good chunk of time actually playing in DC games before they choose to do so. IMO any competent player with a lot of experience in DC games knows that what I am arguing is clearly true.

[wazz]

My main point is that you're saying it's easy to win, but it's not, otherwise more people would be winning and more people would be choosing it.

[Honeybadger]

My main point is that you're saying it's easy to win, but it's not, otherwise more people would be winning and more people would be choosing it.

It is very easy to play this game fairly competently. The fact that most players play it terribly does not prove anything. The majority of players do not understand the simple basic strategy. Many of those who do choose not to implement it rigorously and consistently, for a variety of reasons. And the punishment for deviating from 'correct play' is much more severe in High Low than in most other games.

Also, lots of players do choose this game on their button. And many of the guys who choose it are terrible at it.

[Skippy]

How is hi-lo simpler than straight hi? Straight hi is also closest to nlhe.

I strongly disagree, I'd say it's Omaha hi then Stud.

Okay, I am going to explain why Omaha High Low is much easier to become fairly competent at than any of the other common DC games. I am also going to rant a bit about why I think High Low is not a very good game (even though I really enjoy it!)

The primary reason is that the basic strategy for High Low is very, very simple compared to most other games. And it can be learned really quickly. You know the sort of thing:

1. Play to scoop the pot.
2. Avoid being freerolled, and thus...
3. Don't overplay bare nut lows or bare nut highs, especially OOP.

There are a few more complicated points, but tbh from an overall strategic point of view there is not that much more to High Low than this. Not to play it fairly competently anyway.

The vast majority of High Low played in DC games in the UK is of the 5 or 6 card variety, with almost every pot going multiway. This just makes it an even simpler game in which you really don't need to know a great deal more than the very basic strategy. You have to learn how to value your hands of course - this is the most important skill in High Low. But this is really easy compared to other games, once you have got over the initial hurdle of learning how the split pot aspect works. And you need some hand-reading ability too, but again it is much easier to develop the requisite hand-reading skills compared to other games. One effect of the bi-directionality of the game is that 'advanced' hand-reading skills actually become less important.

etc. etc.

(I've snipped it to make the quote shorter, not cos the post was tez).

Ray Zee says exactly this in his Omaha H/L book, although he's talking about Limit O8- he says that there are two types of games, easy games where you can win by just playing tight, and tougher games where everybody knows the basics and you need something more.

Despite reading this book, I'm still terrible at O8, but I haven't practised much.

[gouty]

PLO hi/lo is an easy game to win at against weak players and very difficult to even beat the rake/session versus competent opponents in my opinion.

My best advice would be that if you are in a game where they play PLO hi/lo or super stud for 50% of the orbits then leave and play hold em. I mean if someone is good enough at superstud to give away position in DC by choosing it then you don't really want to be playing them.

Saying that though I did spend about 30 hours concentrating on the players that choose superstud to try to learn from them but it just put me off DC altogether. Seems like a lot of rocks play this game all over the country to me?

Ming in Blackpool was the only exception. What a fkn legend. Taught us all the games, took all our money then got told off by brush for dancing on the poker table! I wanna be like him when I grow up.

[Honeybadger]

I'd never leave a game in which many players are choosing Superstud on their buttons.

Superstud is nowhere near as simple a game to play well as Omaha High Low. It requires a much wider and more developed skill-set and strategic understanding. And many of the skills necessary for playing Superstud well are pretty difficult for new players to learn if they have mainly played flop games. It is a really, really good game.

[titaniumbean]

I'd never leave a game in which many players are choosing Superstud on their buttons.

Superstud is nowhere near as simple a game to play well as Omaha High Low. It requires a much wider and more developed skill-set and strategic understanding. And many of the skills necessary for playing Superstud well are pretty difficult for new players to learn if they have mainly played flop games. It is a really, really good game.

oh come now,


I choose superstud,


pot


pot


REPOT


get theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere

[gouty]

I'd never leave a game in which many players are choosing Superstud on their buttons.

Superstud is nowhere near as simple a game to play well as Omaha High Low. It requires a much wider and more developed skill-set and strategic understanding. And many of the skills necessary for playing Superstud well are pretty difficult for new players to learn if they have mainly played flop games. It is a really, really good game.

That was my point, although made poorly. I think superstud is the hardest game to learn to play and achieve a reasonable level of understanding. The thing is a lot of DC players kind of find it addictive for some reason. So if Rexas is learning all these games or trying to improve at them it's a real pain in the arse if 50% of games are hi/ lo as its a lot harder to enter a pot.

Maybe they only choose it a lot when I am playing? Hahaha. Yes that makes a lot of sense when I think about it.

If you enjoy strategy and mind games DC is great fun, just don't expect to win a fortune.

[gouty]

My main point is that you're saying it's easy to win, but it's not, otherwise more people would be winning and more people would be choosing it.

DC overall is a good earner but its incredibly boring to be profitable at it.

Here is how it works. At every festival over the country nearly the same 6 players will sit down and leave 2 seats for the patsys who are on the piss or just fancy a change from nlhe or PLO. You get paid from the two fresh faces and do not get paid even massive coolers from the regs as they have seen it all before.

I love how when regs get up plenty they only ever choose split pot games too! It's like hit n running whilst still there.

Rexas. Do yourself a favour and don't bother learning the games to a high level or you might turn into one of these leeches.

Flame away.