GCA "Triple Draw 2-7 & A-5 8 split" Theory R
Newgca
Subject: GCA "Triple Draw 2-7 & A-5 8split"
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Date: 2002-10-15 01:36:03 PST
Triple Draw 2-7 and A-5 8 split
I have played triple draw low-ball and 2-7, I have never played triple draw
2-7. Though never playing this game, it should be no problem dissecting it. It
is just another form of games I am very familiar with.
Playing 2-7 triple draw low-ball shouldn't vary much from triple draw A-5.
Opening in early positions should be done with draws to 7-5's with a 2 in the
hand, possibly 7-6 with a 2 in the hand. Expect many 7-5's and other 7's to be
made. There are fewer 7's you can make in 2-7, than 6's in A-5. In A-5 you can
make a bicycle, equivalent to a 7-5 and you can make 5 variations of 6's. In
2-7 you can only make 3 other variations of 7's besides the nut 7-5. "8" draws
will come into play
I have stated you open from early positions drawing to a 7-5 [possible 7-6
exceptions]. As you go deeper in position you use a table of two card starting
hands. 237-247-257. Possibly a 267 if you were on the button or the blinds. I
would limit two card draw starting hands to these cards, making sure they were
not suited. Starting with these cards eliminates all possibilities of straights
and flushes.
I would accept catching a 6 to this hand and draw to hands not being the
absolute nuts. Starting with other two card draws would get you into positions
you would not care to be in. Starting with a 234, what card would you want to
catch[1 out of 2]? The same goes for other 2 card draws. Think about a
combination and you notice you are looking to catch one magic card. You draw to
234 and catch a 5 or 6, this leaves you drawing to a single card to make your
7, instead of two cards like the hands that started with the 2 card draws I
mentioned. Pick any combination of 2 card draws and you will see the
vulnerability of the hand.
Making 8's, 9's and 10's in this game will probably have a 7 behind it. This is
something you will understand. With position you may choose to draw to an 8
after the first draw when you see your opponents drawing cards. Most players
will draw two times in this game until the big betting rounds.
Drawing 2 cards to one of the starting hands will have you in a position to
catch 3 different cards to make an 8 or better. I would stand on an 8 if I
caught one and take my chances from the play. Remember the smoother your 7 draw
was, the better chance your 8 has to stand up against other 8's. If you see
people show down anything but an 87, they will surely succumb to bad play.
On to triple draw A-5 eight or better split. I have played this game
exclusively with the joker in private games but will dissect it anyway. Before
I go further let me instill something in your mind. Any hand with an Ace can
win a showdown provided there is no high qualifier. This may be the most
important thing I state. If the person has made a low which is not a flush or
straight, the Ace will win high. It is also a bluff catcher.
Flushes will come easily in this game as many people will choose to attack with
a three flush draw opening. Drawing two cards will give you about a 1 in 3
chance of having two draws to make a flush. The one who makes these flushes
will probably win the money.
Opening starters for me would be Ace flush draws. These would have a huge
priority as they seem to be able to get the most value. I prefer to stay away
from drawing against pat hands as bluffing in this game seems almost non
existent. Pat full houses can make quite a dent in drawing hands. I would have
second thoughts on playing small pat flushes such a K or Q high.
Most drawing in this game would be for high with low as a backdoor. Wheel draws
from the beginning are acceptable but remember you will have to make the wheel
to scoop. I have told people they should call with Ace high in certain
instances when they miss, especially if you think the person is drawing low or
drew a card on the river.
Flushes will dominate and you should have an Ace in your draw. After the last
draw, both of you may of missed. No logic in betting if you paired up, however
there is logic if you didn't pair up. People may lay down an Ace if they are
not acquainted with this game. Call with your pair if there is a bet on the
river.
Starting a hand with 3 of a kind should be played the same way as an opening
hand of a 2 card flush draw. Draw two the first time and then draw one so not
to give your hand away. Starting with trips may not be a good start, though I
doubt many may think so. Filling up or making quads is not easy while making
flushes will be. I prefer having Ace King flush draws to be able to overcome
the many flushes you will end up seeing in this game. It allows you to raise
with conviction as full houses will be hard to come by, drawing.
You may get excited with starting hands such as 4567 or such, don't. After
making a hand such as this, it is hard to raise the pot. High flushes will rule
this game and should be the hand of choice. Beware of the pat hand or the
player who plays it..
Russ Georgiev
I know these posts hurt the people I love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Daniel Negreanu
> Playing 2-7 triple draw low-ball shouldn't vary much from triple draw A-5.
Nope, not true.
As you go deeper in position you use a table of two card starting
> hands. 237-247-257. Possibly a 267 if you were on the button or the blinds. I
> would limit two card draw starting hands to these cards, making sure they
were
> not suited.
Of course, a good simulation would show you that these three card
holdings are not as strong as many he left out, namely (234-235-245). The
importance you give to holding a 7 is clearly overrated. Sure drawing to
a 7 is always nice but you are going to miss more often than not.
Realistically, you should be more than happy to end with a good 8, rather
than a rougher 8-7. If you ran your 237 against my 234 heads up a million
times... I'd bust you.
After reading the faulty information you've written here, I wonder what
you think the best TWO card holding would be? I imagine you'll say 2-7,
and again I'd pick two other cards that are far superior.
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Newgca
>times... I'd bust you.
>
Oh, you simulation bets? I thoight you were playing showdown?
Besides, how would you bust me when you wouldn't play me?
>After reading the faulty information you've written here, I wonder what
>you think the best TWO card holding would be? I imagine you'll say 2-7,
>and again I'd pick two other cards that are far superior.
>
Why even bother replying to me, I have no credibility. Besides, I don't play
showdown like you morons, I play people who bet.
>Daniel Negreanu
>www.fullcontactpoker.com
>
You've become a little poker whore.
Russ Georgiev
TD Lowball
> On Sep 13 2003 9:52PM, Newgca wrote:
>
> > Playing 2-7 triple draw low-ball shouldn't vary much from triple draw A-5.
>
> Nope, not true.
Danny Boy, How does 2-7 TDL differ from A-5? Same cards same concept, the
only difference is that you use a different scale for determining hands,
and straight/flush draws go way down in value. The only reason to play
2-7 is that it is very cnfusing to people who are used to A-5 Lowball
> As you go deeper in position you use a table of two card starting
> > hands. 237-247-257. Possibly a 267 if you were on the button or the
blinds. I
> > would limit two card draw starting hands to these cards, making sure they
> were
> > not suited.
>
> Of course, a good simulation would show you that these three card
> holdings are not as strong as many he left out, namely (234-235-245).
Those are good two card starting hands, but I think Russ's point is that
you dont want the risk of making a two card sraight.
> The
> importance you give to holding a 7 is clearly overrated.
2's and 7's are what this game is about.
> Sure drawing to
> a 7 is always nice but you are going to miss more often than not.
> Realistically, you should be more than happy to end with a good 8, rather
> than a rougher 8-7.
I've heard split opinion on this issue, once groups says you should always
be drawing to a wheel, while another group says you should draw ans
smoothly as possible.
> If you ran your 237 against my 234 heads up a million
> times... I'd bust you.
In a showdown test. Yes, but when Russ made a seven, you would be screwed.
> After reading the faulty information you've written here, I wonder what
> you think the best TWO card holding would be? I imagine you'll say 2-7,
> and again I'd pick two other cards that are far superior.
23 or 26
Daniel Negreanu
> On Sep 14 2003 3:01AM, Daniel Negreanu wrote:
>
> > On Sep 13 2003 9:52PM, Newgca wrote:
> >
> > > Playing 2-7 triple draw low-ball shouldn't vary much from triple draw
A-5.
> >
> > Nope, not true.
>
> Danny Boy, How does 2-7 TDL differ from A-5? Same cards same concept, the
> only difference is that you use a different scale for determining hands,
> and straight/flush draws go way down in value. The only reason to play
> 2-7 is that it is very cnfusing to people who are used to A-5 Lowball
>
It's MUCH easier to make a "hand" in A-5. There are several strategy
adjustments that need to be made which should be obvious.
>
> > The
> > importance you give to holding a 7 is clearly overrated.
>
> 2's and 7's are what this game is about.
Nope. 2's yeah, the 7 isn't all that important at all... it's a nice
card to have obviously, but give me 2-3-4 over 2-3-7 any day.
>
> > If you ran your 237 against my 234 heads up a million
> > times... I'd bust you.
>
> In a showdown test. Yes, but when Russ made a seven, you would be screwed.
Why would I be "screwed"? If I start with 2-3-4 I can still make:
5-7 (number one)
6-7 (number two)
Notice, If "I" make a seven, HE would be screwed... now, how about if we
both make a more likely hand, like an 8?
234 vs 237... if we both make an 8:
234-58 (I win)
234-68 (I win)
234-78 (worst I can do is tie)
The only 8's he can make are:
237- 48
237- 58
237- 68
The edge the 237 has is that it can make one 7 that the 234 can't 23567.
That doesn't make up for all the rough hands it'll lose to the 234 when
they both make 8's thouugh.
TD Lowball
> On Sep 14 2003 2:01AM, TD Lowball wrote:
>
> > On Sep 14 2003 3:01AM, Daniel Negreanu wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 13 2003 9:52PM, Newgca wrote:
> > >
> > > > Playing 2-7 triple draw low-ball shouldn't vary much from triple draw
> A-5.
> > >
> > > Nope, not true.
> >
> > Danny Boy, How does 2-7 TDL differ from A-5? Same cards same concept, the
> > only difference is that you use a different scale for determining hands,
> > and straight/flush draws go way down in value. The only reason to play
> > 2-7 is that it is very cnfusing to people who are used to A-5 Lowball
> >
>
> It's MUCH easier to make a "hand" in A-5. There are several strategy
> adjustments that need to be made which should be obvious.
2-7 lowball is basicly the same as A-5 lowball except that some hands that
would be playable in A-5 are not in 2-7 because of the straight/flus
possibilities. Since most lowballers are used to playing A-5 playing 2-7
is confusing at first glance. But you can directly correlate 2-7 hands
with A-5 hands number for number, and then the A-5 Lowballer would be ok,
if he rememebered the straight/flush issue.
UNless you feel that I am missing something big here.
> >
> > > The
> > > importance you give to holding a 7 is clearly overrated.
> >
> > 2's and 7's are what this game is about.
>
> Nope. 2's yeah, the 7 isn't all that important at all... it's a nice
> card to have obviously, but give me 2-3-4 over 2-3-7 any day.
I can see your point about drawing smooth.
> >
> > > If you ran your 237 against my 234 heads up a million
> > > times... I'd bust you.
> >
> > In a showdown test. Yes, but when Russ made a seven, you would be screwed.
>
> Why would I be "screwed"? If I start with 2-3-4 I can still make:
>
> 5-7 (number one)
> 6-7 (number two)
Well for one it's less likely cause the 237 has a seven.
I think that 237 is more likely to specifically make any 7 while 234 is
more likely to make a playable hand, but 234 has straight possibility's.
Someone with poker probe should anylyise this. Becuase of playing
effeiciency I will agree with you that 234 is the better hand
> Notice, If "I" make a seven, HE would be screwed... now, how about if we
> both make a more likely hand, like an 8?
Yeah if you both make 8's Russ is in trouble. But I think that 237 is
morelikely to make exactly a seven, cause it already has one.
> 234 vs 237... if we both make an 8:
>
> 234-58 (I win)
> 234-68 (I win)
> 234-78 (worst I can do is tie)
>
> The only 8's he can make are:
>
> 237- 48
> 237- 58
> 237- 68
>
> The edge the 237 has is that it can make one 7 that the 234 can't 23567.
> That doesn't make up for all the rough hands it'll lose to the 234 when
> they both make 8's thouugh.
Yep basic concept of inside odds in lowball.
Newgca
>adjustments that need to be made which should be obvious.
>
>
This is the single most MORONIC STATEMENT EVER MADE.
>Nope. 2's yeah, the 7 isn't all that important at all... it's a nice
>card to have obviously, but give me 2-3-4 over 2-3-7 any day.
>
>
You should be playing 2-7 then, with Billy Baxter and his marked cards.
> Notice, If "I" make a seven, HE would be screwed... now, how about if we
>both make a more likely hand, like an 8?
>
>234 vs 237... if we both make an 8:
>
>234-58 (I win)
>234-68 (I win)
>234-78 (worst I can do is tie)
>
>The only 8's he can make are:
>
>237- 48
>237- 58
>237- 68
>
> The edge the 237 has is that it can make one 7 that the 234 can't 23567.
> That doesn't make up for all the rough hands it'll lose to the 234 when
>they both make 8's thouugh.
>
>
>
>Daniel Negreanu
>www.fullcontactpoker.com
All the rest of this BS, since you have stated you wouldn't play me. And if you
did, you wouldn't win anyway. We are not playing showdown, we are playing NO
LIMIT, a game who's skills you lack. Betting and reading opposition count
greatly, so you know where you can put your math.
Russ Georgiev
Daniel Negreanu
strategy
> > adjustments that need to be made which should be obvious.
>
> 2-7 lowball is basicly the same as A-5 lowball except that some hands that
> would be playable in A-5 are not in 2-7 because of the straight/flus
> possibilities.
Not to mention the fact that there is one more "good card" in A-5 (the
ace).
Since most lowballers are used to playing A-5 playing 2-7
> is confusing at first glance. But you can directly correlate 2-7 hands
> with A-5 hands number for number, and then the A-5 Lowballer would be ok,
> if he rememebered the straight/flush issue.
>
> UNless you feel that I am missing something big here.
>
There are subtle differences that are actually rather significant. Your
bluffing frequency should be affected by the game you are playing. AN
exagerated example of this would be:
Say in 2-7 you are dealt 2-2-2-2-K. Well here you KNOW that nobody can
make the nuts, or that no one could have possibly started with a strong
starting hand. So, this would be a good opportunity to snow (meaning stay
pat and bet the hand through). Now in A-5, say you were dealt A-A-A-A 9.
This too might give you a decent opportunity to snow, but there are so
many more cards that could help your opponent and have them call you down.
They would probably pay you off if they made any of these hands:
23456
23457
23467
23567
24567
34567
None of these hands are all that great, but once the pot develops by the
river, it's usually worth a crying call.
From these eggaerated examples, it should be clearer to you that there
are less bluffing opportunites in A-5 in comparison to 2-7. There are
also more playable hands in A-5 making for more multi-way pots.
> > Why would I be "screwed"? If I start with 2-3-4 I can still make:
> >
> > 5-7 (number one)
> > 6-7 (number two)
>
> Well for one it's less likely cause the 237 has a seven.
Well that cancels out somewhat because I too have a card he needs, the 4.
>
> Yeah if you both make 8's Russ is in trouble. But I think that 237 is
> morelikely to make exactly a seven, cause it already has one.
That's certainly true. There are actually more sevens you could make
with this hand vs the 234. The 234 can only make number one or number
two, while the 237 can make any seven obviously. However, the fact that
the 8 is a GREAT card for the 234 and a marginally decent card for the 237
makes it a better hand.
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Daniel Negreanu
>
> All the rest of this BS, since you have stated you wouldn't play me.
Sorry, not interested in playing $30 satellites, lol. You know what, I
WILL PLAY YOU HEADS UP at PokerStars if you can ante up. I trust the
software and doubt you could find a way to cheat me there. You wanna play
pot limit, no limit, whatever... I'll play you heads up sit n' go's
$10,000 a crack. Are ya yella? Or wait, they prolly don't allow guys
like you to play there, lol.
Jgm
> WILL PLAY YOU HEADS UP at PokerStars
>
Very courageous offer Daniel.
TD Lowball
Danny boy, why don't you play Gary Carson heads up?
TD Lowball --
TD Lowball
> On Sep 14 2003 8:01AM, TD Lowball wrote:
>
>
> strategy
> > > adjustments that need to be made which should be obvious.
> >
> > 2-7 lowball is basicly the same as A-5 lowball except that some hands that
> > would be playable in A-5 are not in 2-7 because of the straight/flus
> > possibilities.
>
> Not to mention the fact that there is one more "good card" in A-5 (the
> ace).
I would think the good cards in A-5 are A2345 while in 2-7 they are 23457,
same number of cards. If anything the extra good card is not the ace, it's
the six, which can make good hands in A-5.
>
> Since most lowballers are used to playing A-5 playing 2-7
> > is confusing at first glance. But you can directly correlate 2-7 hands
> > with A-5 hands number for number, and then the A-5 Lowballer would be ok,
> > if he rememebered the straight/flush issue.
> >
> > UNless you feel that I am missing something big here.
> >
>
> There are subtle differences that are actually rather significant. Your
> bluffing frequency should be affected by the game you are playing. AN
> exagerated example of this would be:
>
> Say in 2-7 you are dealt 2-2-2-2-K. Well here you KNOW that nobody can
> make the nuts, or that no one could have possibly started with a strong
> starting hand. So, this would be a good opportunity to snow (meaning stay
> pat and bet the hand through). Now in A-5, say you were dealt A-A-A-A 9.
> This too might give you a decent opportunity to snow, but there are so
> many more cards that could help your opponent and have them call you down.
> They would probably pay you off if they made any of these hands:
>
> 23456
> 23457
> 23467
> 23567
> 24567
> 34567
>
> None of these hands are all that great, but once the pot develops by the
> river, it's usually worth a crying call.
The classic lowball snowing hand is 8888x no AAAAx, Real life lowball
player are too suspcisous to fall for many snows. Back in the days of NL
A-5 Lowball maybe but that game dies out becuase it's induces heart
attacks.
> From these eggaerated examples, it should be clearer to you that there
> are less bluffing opportunites in A-5 in comparison to 2-7. There are
> also more playable hands in A-5 making for more multi-way pots.
Not sure why you say that there are less bluffing opertuneities in A-5
than 2-7. It's just harder to make a hand in 2-7. Anyways IMHO No Limit
lowball is too stressful to be worth playing on a regular basis.
>
> > > Why would I be "screwed"? If I start with 2-3-4 I can still make:
> > >
> > > 5-7 (number one)
> > > 6-7 (number two)
> >
> > Well for one it's less likely cause the 237 has a seven.
>
> Well that cancels out somewhat because I too have a card he needs, the 4.
>
> >
> > Yeah if you both make 8's Russ is in trouble. But I think that 237 is
> > morelikely to make exactly a seven, cause it already has one.
>
> That's certainly true. There are actually more sevens you could make
> with this hand vs the 234. The 234 can only make number one or number
> two, while the 237 can make any seven obviously. However, the fact that
> the 8 is a GREAT card for the 234 and a marginally decent card for the 237
> makes it a better hand.
I'll accept that analysis.
Daniel Negreanu
> On Sep 14 2003 8:42PM, Jgm wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, not interested in playing $30 satellites, lol. You know what, I
> > > WILL PLAY YOU HEADS UP at PokerStars
> > >
> > > Daniel Negreanu
> >
> >
> > Very courageous offer Daniel
>
> Danny boy, why don't you play Gary Carson heads up?
>
Ok, I guess I could do that. Of course, I wouldn't be willing to
give him any handicap online. I'd do something like this: Play NL
online for $5000 a crack. If I beat him, I'd ofer him a rematch where
I'd give him $6000 to his $5000. If I won that, I'd offer him $7000
to his $5000 on a third match. Discussing a match after he dumps 15K
would be silly obviously.
I'd do that...at almost any site online that would offer it.
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com