Why isn't there a standard structure?

[mrbaseball]

Like small blind/big blind with 2 levels of betting. The Mirage and Bellegio games are like this. Most (if not all?) internet games are like this. Most common (good) literature on the game (ie HFAP) describes this type of game pretty exclusively.

But once you stray away from the mainstream you start running into different and slightly altered rules like spread limits, triple tiered betting, kill games etc etc etc.

I have played in these offshoot games in the past but just never feel as comfortable in them. I much prefer Bellagio/Paradise type of structure which is prevalent in most poker teachings.

Wouldn't poker as whole do itself a big favor by trying to have a uniform playing structure? With Travel channel poker taking off and books like Positely Fifth Street being best sellers and internet poker bringing the game to everyone who wants it I just think that the more uniformity the industry can get the better it will be for everyone.

[CrackerZack]

Variety is the spice of life. If you like those games, play there. I personally got quite a kick out of the 1-4-8-8 game in the monte carlo so I was really glad I got a chance to play it. The rooms try to cater to what they're players want which is why you see things like a $65 kill at mohegan sun, etc. I think a fixed format would actually hurt poker as what is usually spread is what they players there want to play and forcing them to the norm hurts the game. Just my 2 cents.

[SoBeDude]

I agree BL.

I think the more variety there is out there, the more people will be attracted to "some" version of our beloved game. And that is good for all of us as it helps bring more people in.

It also adds some variation to keep things from getting boring.

If I'm travelling somewhere they play a variant on HE, I'd be happy to sit down and play it (as long as its reasonable).

And if someone find a particular variety appealing doesn't mean they'll stay playing it forever. Any new player to HE is good I think.

-Scott

[mrbaseball]

You see this is where I disagree. I think the more uniformity public poker can have the better. I guess I like the game I learned studied and practiced reading popular hold 'em literature and computer sims.

Poker seems to be gaining momentum and approaching the mainstream. But I think if poker really does hit the mainstream uniformity will help while variety will hurt.

I play mainly on the internet where uniformity is the norm and structure follows that described in popular literature. But I also travel to LV twice a year to play poker. I know that poker will be of the type and structure once again that I learned through popular poker literature and what I play on the internet. I have thought about going somewhere else for a change of pace but I see dreaded words like "kill" and "spread" creep into the converstions and I lose all interest.

If internet and TV poker really do push poker into the limelight I think making it as uniform and familiar to newer players as possible will help be a catalyst.

[Jimbo]

Then I suppose you despise the designated hitter rule as well MrBaseball? How about that darn golf course that has par 5's and par 3's instead of 18 par 4 holes? Doesn't that frost your balls? Now don't get me started on those different blackjack rules, stand on 17, dealer hits on soft 17, split aces and only one card, or split as many aces as you get, double on any two cards or double-down only on 10 or 11. Those rule discrepencies sure have killed off blackjack. What about Canadian or Arena football compared to American football or soccer or even rugby, don't forget Australian rules football, so confusing, /forums/images/icons/confused.gif , it is a wonder anyone plays football at all anymore.

I guess there may be room for several different limit structures in poker after all. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[rkiray]

In general I think you are correct, but in some places this isn't possible. For example Colorado law forbides any bet bigger than $5 so you get two very strange structures here (both suck IMHO). Also the Mirage and Bellagio are very successful so they can do standard things. Less successful places may put in gimicks to try to compete. Standard capitalism. I wouldn't want to change it.

The good news is there are efforts underway to standardize tournament rules, and I believe this is a very good thing for poker.

[rkiray]

Well, I believe the two biggest factors driving new fish towards our nets at the moment are the WPT television shows and the book Positively Fifth Street (Mason recently posted that he believed the PFS was having a much bigger impact on poker at this time and more or less implied it was one of the best things that ever happened to 2+2, David is now one of the top selling authors in the country, at least according to amazon.com). Both of these media portray No-Limit hold'em, which is virtually never spread in any casino I've been in, except during tourneys (and I've been in alot of poker rooms). So what happens when the new fish come to look for NL and it doesn't exsist?

[MaxPower]

I'm in favor of variety. If every poker room spread the same games at the same limits it would be boring.

Also, I think these non-standard games are excellent for players who really understand poker concepts. They will be able to adjust their play to the antes and betting structure. Playing in these games is a real test of whether you understand poker.

[mrbaseball]

Once again my point! To get poker into the mainstream it should become comfortable for the newbie and as uniform as possible rather than a tricky test. After all it is a tricky test anyway.

I'm all for variety. Variety like deciding whether I should play ring hold 'em, stud, Omaha or draw or maybe a tournament. Differing rules within those games is where I once again disagree. I have played in all kinds of goofy triple tiered betting, spread and kill games. I can adjust but I don't think these offerings are good for the game. I think most of these games are aimed at a very small subset of local players which will probably never expand.

Internet poker is gaining ground and it almost by neccessity is uniform in structure. The next generation of players will be brought up in these games. When they head out to the casino for the first time to find 3-6-12 half kill game as the only offering they are likely to be confused. They are also likely to go home and fire up the old computer and play what they are familiar with and say to hell with the casino.

[MaxPower]

mrbaseball,

You make some valid points. I don't disagree with you, I just am not particularly interested in bringing poker into the mainstream. In fact, if casino poker becomes too mainstream and trendy, I will probably lose interest in it. But that's just the way I am.

If we want to bring casino poker into the mainstream and make new players really comfortable, why don't we structure the games like the typical home games that people play with their friends. Dealers choice, everyone antes, and no sandbagging. I'm kidding, of course.

In terms of structure, the important thing is that there is a proper balance of skill and luck. Mason has discussed this in many of his essays. I'd be curious what he thinks of these non-standard games and whether they are good for poker.

[rkiray]

While internet poker may be somewhat more standardized than B&M there are some strange games out there. Ultimate bet has kill and 1/2 kill games. Truepoker 1/2 has a weird structure where both blinds are $1. Also several on-line games in 3/6 have 1 and 3 blinds most B&M use 2 and 3, so the internet isn't perfect either.

[rkiray]

In his essays Mason has discussed three-tier structures and kill games. He doesn't like either. He particularly doesn't like three tier. In both cases he thinks that these games give the better players too much of an edge over the fish. Of course, Mason seems to think that about almost everything. Sometimes he sounds like a broken record.

[MaxPower]

Ultimate Bet also has a 4/8 game with $1 and $2 blinds which for some reason is called the Phill Hellmuth game.

[markc212]

If a novice player has the opportunity to choose between more complicated betting structures vs. typical or standard betting structures, they will naturally gravitate towards the standard ones by themselves. I think most people are smart enough to not bite off more than they can chew too quickly. And, with enough experimentation, they may find out that a kill game suits them better anyways.

[MaxPower]

For players who are trying to play well and learn the game, I think this is true. But, most new players are looking to gamble it up. For them I don't think the structure matters much. If they want to gamble, nothing will stop them.

[Roy Munson]

These games provide a bigger advantage to the skilled player than the standard structure.
In kill games the players who play too many hands are going to be posting more than their share of kill blinds which will cost them more money than a standard structured game.
Spread limit games provide many opportunities for the skilled player to play more hands by limping cheaply with hands that play well multiway. A spread limit game also allows you to make relatively large raises to make players with drawing hands pay big to hit their draws.
I hope that the online sites start to add these structures as well as mixed games.

[ktnoah]

this is a political question. do you prefer socialism or free-market economy? I prefer the most common structure (Mirage/Bellagio), but if other places like different structures, more power to them. variety is what America is all about!

[Tommy Angelo]

"Wouldn't poker as whole do itself a big favor by trying to have a uniform playing structure?"

No. Consider that if uniformity had ever taken hold, we would not be enjoying the modern structures that you would like to see made uniform. It takes only a small step back, in time, and space, to see today as a snapshot, taken during an unending procession of change.

Tommy

[MCS]

I like the standard structure because I play that way online. Online play is really the only option for me, as I live nowehere near a cardroom.

I probably won't play spread-limit if I ever go to Las Vegas. I know a couple of my friends feel the same way, so it's at least plausible that the spread-limit games aren't getting business from online tourists that they might if they structured their game.

[gte910h]

I think better than a standard structure, would be wide proliferation of a common structure. Every gambling town should spread a 2-4 mirage style game for instance. Variety is GREAT to keep around, but just like fast food, its nice to have something you know what you are getting into anywhere.