Thoughts on H.O.R.S.E.

Last week PokerStars added HORSE to its repertoire of games. HORSE is an acronym for Hold 'Em, Omaha 8, Razz, Stud, and Stud 8 ("Eight or better" hi-low stud). The game types switches after each round, where a round lasts for as many hands as there are seats at the table. Or something like that. Anyway, HORSE is reputed to be a better test of general poker skills because it requires mastery, or at least competence, in many of the major forms of poker.

On day one PokerStars had only $1/$2 limit cash games. These are bigger stakes than I've ever played, but I wanted to give it a try. In each of my first two sessions I turned $10 into $80. Brimming with confidence, I then went on a bender in my third session and turned $80 into $0.

On day three PokerStars introduced HORSE tournaments. After reading up a bit on Razz strategy (where I noticed I was losing the most money among the five different game types), I entered two $3.40 tourneys and won both of them.

So the jury's still out whether I have any HORSE skills. But here are my observations:

• Limit is quite a different game from no-limit. I haven't put my finger on exactly how it's different, but there is quite a bit more subtlety to betting than with no-limit. Suppose you have a monster hand against what you believe to be your opponent's playable hand. Thus, your goal is to maximize the amount of money in the pot, as well as to keep the hand going as long as possible. In no-limit, you have four options: make a big bet and hope he comes along for the ride; make a value bet and hope he doesn't smell a trap; check-call and represent a draw; or check-raise and hope he calls. (Obviously, there's also bet-reraise but that's a rare dream scenario.) In any of these cases the visible action is different, so in some ways it's clear to an attentive observer what's going on. But with limit, there isn't any quantitative difference between a big bet and a value bet, which makes it harder to discern the meaning of an opening bet. Moreover, if your goal is to get as much money in the pot as possible, then other factors become relevant, such as who begins the action and how many players are at the table. It's possible that limit is actually a simpler game than no-limit and that I'm confusing lack of familiarity with complexity, but at the moment I find I'm spending more cognitive cycles trying to figure out what the heck my opponent is thinking, whereas in no-limit I find I can usually narrow it down to three choices (strong representing weak, weak representing strong, or on a draw).
• Razz seems to be a game of bluffing. That's the only way I can think of that makes it interesting; otherwise, it's just several people calling bets and hoping the next card doesn't make a pair. Unfortunately, at the lower levels, I don't see people paying a great deal of attention to other players' hands. How else can you explain why someone keeps calling with 89K when I'm showing 762?
• In hi-low stud, forget it: you're not going to be able to make a low hand. I don't care if your starting hand is A23. Just fold.
• Tournaments seem like they will last forever until you get to the non-stud-based games (Hold 'Em and Omaha). Suddenly, instead of tiny antes and small bring-ins, you are hit with blinds -- which have gone way up since the last Hold 'Em round. One round of $100/$200 Hold 'Em quickly knocks out the small stacks.
• Stud is a hard game because it requires card memory. In Hold 'Em, the only thing you have to remember is the previous betting action. Since bets are closely related to threats, your primal fear center naturally remembers things like check-raises or suspicious cold calls. But in Stud, you have to quickly memorize the ranks and suits of all visible cards, including those that get immediately folded after the deal. You never know when your hand will develop into a two-outer situation that's actually a zero-outer if you'd noticed that both black tens were folded on third street.