help me with this strange nlhe variant

[knifeandfork]

posted this in small stakes nl/pl but maybe it should be here, or in home poker but im not sure here goes
just played in a new home game last night it is a variation of nlhe very strange

2 small blinds are posted left of the dealer.

if the pot goes unraised though, the blinds may just check for the half bet. essentially the blinds are .5, .5 but its 1.00 to call and the blinds have an imaginary .5 in there for them and if it is raised they get a .5 discount on entering the pot. if it is raised to 3 the blinds need only add 2.00

if there are no raises the players act in normal order from the left of the dealer on. if there was a preflop raise, that unfortunate player (the raiser) the last aggressor acts first.

the quirkiness continues the flop is dealt and the action is no limit still, the last aggressor (if there was one acts)and then it proceeds to the left.

then after action is completed on the flop, the turn and river are dealt simultaneously. then the last aggressor acts and so on then a showdown if needed.

so i could use some help on this. the game is usually not quite full (6-7) players. very loose, and fairly passive. its a good soft game otherwise i wouldnt bother with this wacky format. starting hands, how to play draws, the change in action order the flop, the turnriver play, and any other advice on optimal strategy woul be greatly appreciated.
thanks,
jason

[Louie Landale]

The blind discount should discourage callers since you are risking $1 to win $1, but have 2 opponents. The raiser-acts-first rule should likewise discourage raising. It also mostly negates the advantage of last position, something better players put to use more so than bad players.

The lack of a turn bet discourages one-time flop callers which is good for the selective player, especially those who want to get their money in early and hope they are not faced with big river bets.

So this game favors the weak-tight-passive players: good thing your grand-dad isn't playing.

Don't worry about the blind discount which doesn't matter in the loose games. Be sure the player who raises a lot PF is on your LEFT; insuring you position on the critical flop betting round. Tend to raise LESS often on the flop in marginal situations to insure you retain good position on the last betting round. If you think your hand will be in jeapardy on the river be sure to bet a bunch on the flop. You can still limp a lot in natural late position since you'll have position on the flop. Hurray!! there are no fee ..err.. free cards. Raising PF gives you bad position; but you can still do it a lot if you can control the opponents or will accurately deduce there holdings after your flop bet.

- Louie

[Nottom]

Where do people come up with games like this?

[anduril]

(the raiser) the last aggressor acts first.

worst rule "ever"

[Andy B]

It's actually not uncommon in home games, and I think it's a pretty good rule. Why is it the worst rule ever?

[knifeandfork]

thanks louie played the game again tonight and met my goal of winning two buy ins (also fixed buy ins forgot to mention that). i decided that playing tight outside of the blinds was the play(as you have essentially said here)in the blinds is lucrative and the guys so far are really average. they usually wont bet with less than top pair on the flop and if 3 to a suit hits they are check calling with a set, a paired board means pretty much the same thing if they have the flush.

the motto for this group of guys is that AA doesnt win that often (it does against QQ though:). One guy the "rock" of the group openly states his preference for 22 over AA because "people dont expect it". but im getting off point now. thanks for the good advice.

so far losing position by betting and raising is the most annoying part, and getting to see the turn and river with a good draw for one bet the most rewarding. i have rather excellent reads on some of the players now if i can just get the stakes up a bit it might work perfectly;)

larger than normal value bets seem to be getting paid but betting with second pair i think is -ev here or close to it, as i think im rarely getting paid except by draws that are too close to even money against second pair. the post flop play is a little tighter than i thought before (but not much) bluffing seems to be profitable in the long term aspect, and i think i can build my bankroll in this game even though its very small stakes.

regardless for avg or so poker players these are really nice guys and fun to play with so its a win win situation either way . ive gotten 5 responses to this post and yours is the only strategically helpful so far so thanks.

how about small and small medium pairs im not sure how i like them so far. it seems since the game is short all the time that big cards rule and small pairs just get run down to much. set value is greatly diminished also thanks again
KandF

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
how about small and small medium pairs im not sure how i like them so far. it seems since the game is short all the time that big cards rule and small pairs just get run down to much. set value is greatly diminished also thanks again

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would set value be diminished? If the game was limit, I could see that, but in NL you should still be able to get value on your flopped sets.

You do bring up a good point about draws though. This game is made for big drawing hands. They can easily get very high pot equity on the flop, and not having to deal with paying another bet on the turn makes these hands much better than in a traditional NL game.

[Louie Landale]

Your first sentance about "2 buy in goal" is real disturbing. If you were digging a ditch than a "8 foot trench" is a realistic goal. But short-term results in poker have almost nothing to do with "playing well" that setting such a goal is a boarderline disaster. Whereas results in Digging IS very much correlated to how well or how much you work. If you win quick will you quit? If you get stuck will you continue to play on tilt against better players?

No. Set a "goal" to play each hand as best as you can, and let the winning take care of itself.

- Louie

[knifeandfork]

you are right i know this and i see poker games as the long term and no i would rarely if ever quit a good game, only if i was too tired or had to leave for an outside reason. I do sometimes have a problem with tilting off chips, but as far as continuing to play in this game with better players so far i have not seen any (not to be unhumble its a rare game i sit in that i am clearly best). As far as tilt goes im not sure anyone is completely immune to it and it is something i am constantly trying to improve on (hence i try to avoid playing tired now). Im not there yet but im trying. i set this "goal" for myself to gauge better the results because net sums of wins and losses are going to be smaller in this game than i am used to (not a bad thing). and to respond to nottom i may have a hard time getting paid sometiems on a set in part due to the passivity of the table the missing turn and not being able to check raise very often(when i do get to check raise my opponents here rarely release a hand). thanks for all the help and any additional thoughts very appreciated.
jason