Non-Standard Games are Great
Part I

BY: Ashley Adams
Contact at: (Asha34@aol.com)
Author of Winning 7-Card Stud

The current popularity of no limit hold 'em might convince the casual observer that it and other forms of casino poker are really the only games in town. In fact, some writers and players opine that the casino poker varieties are the only "real" poker games. In their view, if it isn't conventional Hold 'em, Omaha, Stud and Draw it isn't legitimate poker.

How wrong they are.

Though millions of people play "casino poker" in its limit forms, poker thrives in all of its nearly infinite varieties in thousands of home games around the United States today. These variations normally surface under the broader heading of "Dealer's Choice" and are as legitimate as any of the more structured forms of poker player in casinos.

Historically, all of the games that the poker conservatives consider so sacrosanct were themselves consider "wild". Once upon a time, 5-card stud and 5-card draw were king. They were the only games played seriously in casinos or poker clubs. Though most players had other games that they called in their home games, these games were considered wild, luck-based, and hardly worthy of a skillful player's attention.

The "crazy" games that people played at home but not in clubs included 7-card stud - which according to a poker book from the 1930s had so many possibilities for hands that skillful play was impossible. Similarly, Texas Hold 'em was considered a wild game - with all those common cards that anyone can add to his hand. Surely Omaha, Omaha8, and Stud8 were considered freakish wild games that serious players eschewed.

But we all know the rest of the story.

Serious poker players who disparage the modern array of highly individualized home games show an underlying ignorance or bias against them - as they are at least as skillful and interesting as anything of the games that have become publicly popular like Hold 'em.

Yes, Dealer's Choice is a live and well, as some recent poker experiences of mine reveal. I'm happy to share them with you if only to spark an interest among those of you who might otherwise be inclined to dismiss these games. They are fascinating, skillful and, if played well, potentially profitable for the thoughtful and engaged poker player.

I played in my first Dealer's Choice game up in the woods of Western-Central Maine, in a small town called Stoneham. My Dad, who lives in nearby Lovell, Maine, had succeeded in finding a place to play during my brief stay over the July 4th holiday weekend. He cautioned me in advance that this would not be like my casino experience. I was not disappointed.

They told us in advance that this was a quarter game - meaning that all bets were in $.25 increments. The betting was simple. Each player anted $.25 and could bet or raise by $.25 - with a maximum of three raises per round. Players could bet $.50 if they wanted only when there was a pair showing or on the last card. We bought in for $10.00 - and players could "go light" if they didn't have enough in front of them but wanted to fully participate in the betting. It was a friendly game like we used to play in high school. The game went off nearly every week - and had been going for a while.

We played a version of 7-card stud that I hadn't seen for over thirty years - something called "Follow the Queen - with control". This variety makes all Queens wild, the card that follows the Queen wild and all of its rank wild. It is played high-low declare. It also adds a twist I had never played or even heard of. The player with the high board may, at any time, control the game by announcing that the game is over and the cards are to be re-dealt, with the pot staying in the middle for the next deal. We only played this game a few times - and no one ever invoked "control". But it is an interesting twist, don't you think. It's something like surrender in Blackjack I suppose. Fascinating. It was worth the entire trip and the time spent in the game to learn about this interesting twist that I had never considered before.

We also played "7-card draw, high low, roll your own". The game is exactly as one would think - with each player (there were only four of us) receiving seven cards, followed by a round of betting, followed by a draw, followed by another round of betting, followed by each player arranging his cards in the order he would like them revealed and then, starting with the top card, revealing one card each per round of betting until only one unrevealed card remains. Players then declare high, low, or high-low as in a standard high-low simultaneous declare game, followed by a final betting round.

The host told us that he was going easy on us by not calling another variation that he often liked. This as called "legs" and required the eventual winner of the pot to win two hands before the pot was awarded. If a player wins a hand, he must win a second hand before anyone else wins two hands before he gets the pot. In the meantime, after each hand is concluded, the pot continues to stay in the middle - awarded only to he who wins twice before the rest of the field.

A fifth player arrived after about an hour and we switched to no limit hold 'em. Curiously, everyone then bought in for $10.00 in $.25 chips. All casino rules applied - including table stakes, going all-in, and blinds. Apparently, home game dealer's choice players, who had played with pocket change for years, are now emulating the television shows by playing no limit hold 'em, and no limit hold 'em only, with chips and standard casino rules instead of cash.

Overall, it was an interesting hybrid of a night. I felt in some ways like I was perched on the cusp - with one foot in the old world of interesting home game poker variations and the other firmly planted in the new world of televised casino poker. The other players didn't seem the least bit distracted by this odd juxtaposition of the two types of games. They just called it all poker. Which, in fact, it surely was.

Some of my writing colleagues and other serious players might encourage the no limit hold 'em at the expense of the other games. I for one would argue the opposite. Here's to preserving those uniquely crafted home games. They make things interesting.

At the end of the night, I logged the whole session just as I would log any session in my playing book. I was pleased to record a gain of $11.50. As I often say when someone superciliously stares at me when I'm sitting in a low stakes game, "Hey, it's action ain't it"?

© The Poker Forum.com, all rights reserved