Down Under Hold 'Em

Down Under Hold 'Em is similar to Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em, except adds the same component as Down Under Blackjack, in which the player is told the range (small, medium, or large) of each of the dealer's hole cards. This is accomplished with a special card reader.

I saw the game at G2E and was told it has placements at Barona, Eagle Mountain, and somewhere in Mexico.

Please click the link for all the rules and analysis. As always, I welcome all comments and corrections.

The question for the poll is would you play Down Under Hold 'Em?

I originally saw Down Under BlackJack at Cutting Edge in 2016. At that time, they used specially marked cards.

I told the inventor that it was an cool concept, but needed an electronic sensor rather than the marked cards. The following year, they had the sensor, and I won $10 from the Wiz when I bet that the game would win the competition.


When I saw Down Under Hold Em at G2E, I laughingly remarked to the inventor, "I see you're getting some mileage out of that sensor you designed."

Anyay, I tried this game at G2E, playing 3 hands for a single round.

I don't remember the specifics, but I bet 3x on one hand and would have folded the other two pre-flop until I was reminded that I could see the flop for free. Both of those hands hit the flop, so I made the 1x post-flop bet.

As you can probably predict, the 'great' 3x hand lost and both of the crappy 1x hands won.

I told the owner that it was interesting and wished him luck with it.

I think players that play other Hold 'Em table games would like it.


Would I play it? Probably not. Then again, while I often play real poker, and deal for a pub league, I rarely play the Hold 'Em table game variants. On the other hand, if I ever saw Down Under Blackjack, I'd probably play that.

While I think this game will get some placements, I don’t know that there is a lot of Texas Hold’Em real estate left to be had with UTH & Heads Up Hold’em already dominating the space.

As a player, I have a harder strategy to learn with down under for a greater EOR than UTH and if I want a 3X/lower volatility game, I’d look for HUH with the bad beat addition.

Of course I am not an average joe casino patron (very few Forum Members fall into that category) and ultimately the games success will turn on how much fun/value added does knowing the range of dealer hole cards has for average joe table games patron.

I’d chose UTH & HUH over Down Under HE given the tables side by side.

Well, this one is interesting.

The first decision has six strategy charts which is kinda hard to memorize but I guess the major features of the charts are pretty intuitive.

However, if you CHECK at the first decision point, the 2nd decision (Fold or Bet 1X after seeing the 3 card flop) seems to be uncharted territory. I wonder what the strategy would be? The general features of the strategy may not be too complex even though it depends on the info about the dealer's two cards, because you will have already raised 3X in those situations in which your two cards are better than the dealer's two cards. Hmmmm.

Edit: I think the strategy for the 2nd decision will be something like: BET 1x with any pair or with a draw to a 4-card flush or 4-card straight or with a 3-card straight flush draw; Otherwise FOLD. There will be exceptions, I imagine.

Given the posted strategy, I calculate that player will bet 3X with a frequency of 48.8782%.

So:
(a)Average Final Wager = 3.896 (Posted)
(b)Required Initial Wager = 2
(c)Average Preflop Wager = 1.4664 (=0.488782*3)
Average Postflop Wager = 0.4296 =a-b-c

So, with optimum strategy, player will:

Bet 3X: 48.878%
Bet 1X: 42.96%
Fold: 8.1586%

So, if you have not raised 3X preflop, this implies that, when faced with the postflop decision, you will BET 1X 84% of the time and FOLD 16% of the time with optimal strategy.

I played this in May at Eagle Mountain Casino in California. I thought the game was a pretty neat idea. If I played table games I would definitely play this one for a fun night out.

Here's an interesting situation:

You have Q2off. Dealer has MM (Medium,Medium)
You check.

Flop comes : 6-9-3 rainbow.

Dealer now has either has one medium pair (or trips) or an open-ended straight draw. I haven't run the math but I think you must fold.

Also, if dealer has LL and the flop comes with two different large ranks, I imagine you must fold most hands.

If Dealer has LM or LS and the flop has 3 unpaired large cards, I think you must fold your unmade hands if you don't have a large card. Dealer has a large pair about 33% of the time, otherwise has a straight draw and an overcard to your hole cards.

The concept is that, for the postflop decision, you must consider how the flop cards coordinate with the categories of the dealer's cards.

Quote: PokerGrinder

I played this in May at Eagle Mountain Casino in California. I thought the game was a pretty neat idea. If I played table games I would definitely play this one for a fun night out.

Oops I played down under blackjack. Ignore the stupid guy.

Quote: PokerGrinder

Oops I played down under blackjack. Ignore the stupid guy.

I was going to say that you were ahead of the curve since it opened in September at Eagle Mountain :) lol

Quote: gordonm888

Given the posted strategy, I calculate that player will bet 3X with a frequency of 48.8782%.

So:
(a)Average Final Wager = 3.896 (Posted)
(b)Required Initial Wager = 2
(c)Average Preflop Wager = 1.4664 (=0.488782*3)
Average Postflop Wager = 0.4296 =a-b-c

So, with optimum strategy, player will:

Bet 3X: 48.878%
Bet 1X: 42.96%
Fold: 8.1586%

So, if you have not raised 3X preflop, this implies that, when faced with the postflop decision, you will BET 1X 84% of the time and FOLD 16% of the time with optimal strategy.

I found a small glitch in this spreadsheet -the numbers are now revised to be:

With optimum strategy, player will:

Bet 3X: 50.325%
Bet 1X: 38.626%
Fold: 11.0495%

If you checked preflop, this implies that, when faced with the postflop decision and using optimal strategy, you will BET 1X about 78% of the time and FOLD 22% of the time.