Starting Over

When a rule or custom has been established for a long period of time, it gets close to being set in stone. It's been working passably, and people are familiar with it. No matter that it is less than optimum. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the obnoxious expression heard most often by people like me who are on the lookout to make things a bit better. I think this maxim is one of the worst mantras in the language. It says we should wait until there is a breakdown, and not try to prevent one. Whatever happened to, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," the sensible person's approach?

Of course, these inferior rules "work." (In this context, "work" means they are not so bad that there is a hue and cry to do away with them, so they have survived a long time.) But they are suboptimal. Unfortunately, those of us who would like to better the situation are often accused of "crimes." I am noted – in several games besides poker – for being "a malcontent," a person who has "no respect for tradition," and some other worse offenses that Card Player is too polite a publication to print. All this for recognizing that some present practices are improvable, even though they "work." Not everyone wants to make things better – and have to learn a new way of doing things. Just learning the present way has exhausted some people's intellect.

I have occasionally daydreamed that I had the opportunity to start poker over again from scratch, and contemplated what I would do differently. Here are some items on my wish list:

1. Cancel the "fourth-street option" in seven-card stud. Whoever introduced that game evidently did so with the rule that an open pair on the fourth card gave each player the option of betting either the lower or the higher limit. If the higher limit was bet, that was now the new set amount for raises. If the lower limit was bet, each player could raise either the lower or the higher amount. (It takes a while to write the rule, which is often a warning that it might not be such a good one.) As the game spread, the rule spread with it, like cancer on a host.

The problem with the rule is not that it is so detrimental, but that it is unnecessary. Ask any software developer who has tried to program poker on an Internet site. (Some Internet sites do not use the rule; bravo for them.) The rule is extra rigmarole for the new player to learn – and the rule-maker to explain. We don't need it.

2. Get rid of the joker. Of course, with the introduction of hold'em, Omaha, and stud to the California legalized poker menu back in the late '80s, the "joker games" of draw and lowball took a nose dive in popularity. The joker is well on its way to the grave, but helping it all the way into the coffin won't hurt. It is a mistake to assign tremendous extra value to one card. The person with that card may well have a rock-crusher hand, and all hands without it must be devalued. The net result is that fewer hands are playable, which waters down the action. Both draw and lowball can be played without a joker, so I am not casting aspersions against the poker forms themselves, just their brand of employing the joker.

3. Reduce the value of the ace. As you see from the previous tirade, I am against having one card far more important than the others. Using the ace either only for high or only for low, but not for both ways, adds something to the game. Imagine playing Omaha high-low and being able to enter the pot without an ace in your hand! More hands would become playable, helping the action. Frankly, I do not know enough about card game history to know how the ace got to be such a big shot. I understand the low end, since 1 is less than 2, and completes the set of single integers. But a king sounds like it should be the boss. How did it get leapfrogged by a lowly 1?

4. Get some limit poker structures that are not in the standard 1-1-2-2 ratio. Do you eat only vanilla ice cream? Even if vanilla were the best-tasting flavor (I don't think it is), wouldn't you want a change of pace once in a while? Sometimes, I think a goodly number of poker players are descended from those missionaries who limited themselves to one position. (I guess you could say it "worked.") In both Omaha and hold'em, but especially the former, there is a good technical reason for having the bet size on the flop twice the bet size preflop. The size of the field has a lot to do with whether you can use the fine points of the game or simply see who has the best hand. With four or more opponents, bluffing and reading go mostly out the window; the best hand at the end wins. Furthermore, it is often not the same hand that was ahead for most of the way. The double-size flop bet gets out the deadwood. With only one or two opponents left, you can play poker. My favorite betting ratio is 1-2-3-3. On the few occasions that I was able to talk the table into using it – and have the house allow us to spread it – we had a great action game.

Unfortunately, poker has some established rules and procedures that are not optimal. They have been around so long now that it will be hard to get rid of them. It is important when starting a new game – or anything else – that you get off on the right foot. Otherwise, these things get so entrenched that they become nearly impossible to change.