Introducing poker to newbies / how to make a "let's try poker" night not awful (1 Viewer)

[Nex]

Heyo,

I was recently talking with a work colleague who is in a regularly playing D&D group. The group members don't know anything about poker, but she knows that I'm fairly deep into it. She said recently one of their players made a suggestion to "try out" poker, and asked me if I was interested. I didn't immediately say yes because I wanted to properly prepare first.

D&D groups usually consist of 4, maybe 5 players and a dungeonmaster, so I'd expect this to be a shorthanded round including me.

Now I'm not particularly fond of teaching people the very basics they could easily learn online for free (i.e. basic rules of poker, hand rankings, maybe even basic etiquette). I'd much rather have this as a prerequisite and start right with basic play strategy. So what I am thinking about doing is send them a couple of YouTube videos that give a general introduction to the rules ahead of the night so they can prepare a bit.

Many years back, when I wasn't into poker yet, I myself was in such a "try out" poker night where basically noone had any idea about the subject. Needless to say, it was a complete mess, nobody learned anything, and it wasn't particularly fun. (Did I mention it also included dice chips aka. "how much is this color worth again"?)

I would like to try my best to give those people a well-structured introduction of proper poker, beyond the bare rules. Basically a night that has a realistic chance of getting at least a few of them hooked on it.

My personal opinion is that poker with no actual monetary risk leads to bad play and a "I don't really care" attitude. They likely won't be willing to risk more than 40, maybe 50 bucks for the whole night, so I figured FL Holdem at 25c/50c or NL Holdem at 5c/10c might be appropriate for starters. This would give them a good amount of hands or full buy-ins. I'm not sure however what implications starting with either FL or NL exactly has. My fear with FL is that people get a bad habit of just calling down to the river with nearly any two because it appears to be so cheap, and my fear with NL is that people might still be intimidated to lose a full $10 in a single hand and hence play extremely tight, in turn barely creating any action, and with that, barely any good example hands to learn from.

NLHE tournaments ($10-$20 buyin, 70%/30% pay) are also a possibility, but I see multiple problems in regards to having newbies start with this as their very first game of poker, so I'd rather save this up for a little later:

• Tournament requires much more dynamic play even at a basic level of understanding; more and more trash hands get playable and have to be played as the blinds go up. I figure newbies who don't have a solid basic hand selection yet would quickly get confused with the ever-changing minimum hand requirements in each phase. Cash is much easier to learn in this regard.
• Some players might be intimidated by the multi-hour time frame of a tournament where they essentially can't leave early without sacrificing their whole buyin. With cash game in contrast, they can have a break at any time they want and also cash out whenever they want, creating a bigger sense of freedom.
• Play would probably be very tight having the knowledge they are out for the whole night if they bust, so in the end it will probably be a luckfest and the winners are decided by who has the better starting hand once the blinds force people all-in preflop. Of course one could work with rebuys, but then again a rebuy costs them significantly more money. Adding bounties (maybe a $10+$5 format) might help reduce the perceived risk and encourage a rebuy because even if people don't make it ITM they could still end up with cashing a bounty.
• Players who bust early can't do anything but watch (unless there's rebuys and they are willing to fire another bullet), and while for some newbies this might not be an issue - they could still learn things by merely watching - some others might quickly get bored. With cash game in contrast they can rebuy at any time, without negative impact on game dynamic, and keep playing actively. (Late rebuy in a tournament is a worse proposition for the low-skilled rebuyer than at the beginning due to rising blinds)

So I believe a very low stakes cash game might be the easiest way for them to learn the ropes, and also the easiest to ensure people stay entertained throughout the night.

I am considering Limit 7 Card Stud at 25c/50c (5c Ante 10c Bring) as the first alternate poker variant after NL/FL Holdem to introduce them to after they've been learning for a while. Omaha would be overkill I believe - merely a fancy money merry-go-round if FL, and brutal on peoples' money if PL. The smallest denom in my nice chip sets is 5c which means 5c/10c is the lowest I can go, and while this might give a good amount of play in NLHE, in PLO the money is probably gone far too quickly for some.

If someone here already has experience in introducing newbies to poker, I'd love to hear about your approach, ideas and findings!

 

[Beakertwang]

If $40 is the max lost, I would definitely try 5¢/10¢ cash game. That would allow for several rebuys as they donk off their stacks. Maybe a couple orbits of PLO at the end, just to introduce it. Then some .25/.50 limit stud, like you said.

Teach them all the major etiquette, betting, shuffling, dealing, chip handling, etc. that you expect from your regular group, and hold them to it. Maybe even compare it in to D&D etiquette if you can, because even though I haven't played RPG's, my son does regularly, and he'll complain about certain behaviors the way I complain about someone not paying attention to his turn to act.

Maybe make up some fun award certificates (biggest donkey, best bluff, alligator blood, etc.) and hand them out at the end of the night.

 

[colter ripton]

I'd stick with 1 game. Probably 5c 10c nlh. Also maybe a 10 to 20 dollar buy in tourney.

 

[Nex]

I'd stick with 1 game. Probably 5c 10c nlh. Also maybe a 10 to 20 dollar buy in tourney.

I doubt I can fit a tournament next to some other game variant in a single night, given a proper no-luck-fest tournament takes a couple of hours.

Keep in mind learning new things can be equally or even more taxing than giving your very best playing advanced poker, so I doubt they (as well as me) have enough energy for more than say 3 or 4 hours.

Teach them all the major etiquette, betting, shuffling, dealing, chip handling, etc. that you expect from your regular group, and hold them to it. Maybe even compare it in to D&D etiquette if you can, because even though I haven't played RPG's, my son does regularly, and he'll complain about certain behaviors the way I complain about someone not paying attention to his turn to act.

That is certainly part of my plan! I'm not into D&D myself either, but I know they have a crazy big rulebook and unwritten etiquette so yes I'm pretty sure they can relate to that if I "sell" the idea in the right way.

 

[JTBass]

I would do a tournament, this seems like the best thing to introduce new players to holdem. There are a few reasons. first, it is a fixed buyin, and you can run 2 shorter $20 tournaments, where if you get popped early, you only need to wait around for another 1-2 hours to play again. 2nd, people might get discouraged when the pot is 15$ in a cash game. Tournaments dont have these optics, your playing with play money once you buyin.

you might need to get 2-4 more players to have a healthy tournament though, as 4-5 is a little small. I try to keep my tournaments to at least 8 players min.

You can also have a short tourney to start $20 buyin lasting 2 hours, and then $20 cash game afterwards 5c/10c blinds.

This gives the players both to see what they liked better. Just my 2 cents, do whatever you think is appropriate.

Cheers,
Jeff

 

[WedgeRock]

Some players might be intimidated by the multi-hour time frame of a tournament where they essentially can't leave early without sacrificing their whole buyin. With cash game in contrast, they can have a break at any time they want and also cash out whenever they want, creating a bigger sense of freedom.

These are D&D players? Why is this even a concern?

I would do a tournament, this seems like the best thing to introduce new players to holdem. There are a few reasons.

If they get hooked, or even intrigued, they can find tournament poker on TV. WSOP, WPT and some other "high roller" events on Fox Sports channels. Cash games aren't as easy to find. I don't know if televised poker in Germany is the same as it is here, tho.

 

[Poker Zombie]

We have taught 54 players how to play poker in our home game. I can't even count the number of people/celebrities we have taught at celebrity poker events. Only 8 chose not to return.

So I post this from experience.

1. Sell the fun, not the poker Poker is a fun game. For the first game, you want to teach them the absolute basics - nothing else. Poker strategy is opening a door to "doing it wrong". Nobody wants to be told "you are doing it wrong" when they are there to have fun. Print cards with the hand rankings, so they dont forget (how many struggle with "which is greater, a straight or a flush"). Teach them how to shuffle and etiquette. They will make etiquette mistakes. Don't jump on them, but correct them when they are not in the hand buy telling them why they should not discuss their folded hand.
2. Know your audience These are D&D players. There is a reasonable expectation that they are way above the average intelligence here. They will grasp the game. They will comprehend the math. You do not need to teach them strategy. Their group is all about fantasy strategy, sometimes vs unknown odds.
3. Tournament poker. I could write an essay on why tournament poker is better to teach newbies than cash games, but it would be just that... an essay - TL;DR territory.
4. Deep Stacks Our Newbie night chips spreads a T5000 tournament with 5/10 blinds. They can limp into pots to their heart's content, because newbies want to play poker, not the folding game. With 500 BB, and everyone limping (and nobody folding) they will get a lot of experience, for really, really cheap.
5. Let the wookie win ok, not win, per-se but dont bring your A-game to pummel a table of newbies. When you know they have the nut flush, but you are sitting there with a full house, they will call whatever you bet. DONT JAM. This comes to mind...
6. Timing Manage the blinds so there are at least 16-20 BB after 1/2 the night. If they get 2 hours of poker for $10 or $20, they will have ample time to decide if they like poker or not. Not everyone does.

I can give you more, but I'm really trying to keep this from being TL;DR.

 

[ekricket]

Limit tournament.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Limit tournament.

Trust me - with new players, it often looks like a limit tournament, capped at one raise.

 

[Nex]

I would do a tournament, this seems like the best thing to introduce new players to holdem. There are a few reasons. first, it is a fixed buyin, and you can run 2 shorter $20 tournaments, where if you get popped early, you only need to wait around for another 1-2 hours to play again.

That sounds like a good idea to lessen this one negative aspect, but I'm still unsure if it is possible to make a 1.5-2 hour tournament structure that doesn't end up being a luckfest.

2nd, people might get discouraged when the pot is 15$ in a cash game. Tournaments dont have these optics, your playing with play money once you buyin.

In a 5c/10c game, and only 5-6 players, I doubt the pot gets so large that often. But I get your reasoning. My hope is that having four or five times your buyin for the evening up your sleeve (and having made your peace already with maybe losing the full amount) would increase their courage a bit. Not like they'd go super maniac or Johnny All-In, but a bit away from the nit level.

you might need to get 2-4 more players to have a healthy tournament though, as 4-5 is a little small. I try to keep my tournaments to at least 8 players min.

That's what I already assumed but wasn't sure about.
Since getting 2-4 additional players ad hoc isn't an option, tournament would land on the back burner for maybe a future session once they got hooked and recruited more people.

You can also have a short tourney to start $20 buyin lasting 2 hours, and then $20 cash game afterwards 5c/10c blinds. This gives the players both to see what they liked better.

My fear here is that for complete newbies, this might create so much confusion that they barely learn anything useful. This however definitely sounds like a plan for when they have a solid grasp and don't mix up things anymore.

These are D&D players? Why is this even a concern?

Good point. I didn't even think of that aspect of D&D.
However, playing D&D, they are in known waters -- in poker, not yet.

Sell the fun, not the poker Poker is a fun game. For the first game, you want to teach them the absolute basics - nothing else. Poker strategy is opening a door to "doing it wrong". Nobody wants to be told "you are doing it wrong" when they are there to have fun. Print cards with the hand rankings, so they dont forget (how many struggle with "which is greater, a straight or a flush"). Teach them how to shuffle and etiquette. They will make etiquette mistakes. Don't jump on them, but correct them when they are not in the hand buy telling them why they should not discuss their folded hand.

The "you're doing it wrong" is an aspect I haven't considered. I just thought it would be detrimental to let them play completely as they see fit with no guidance whatsoever. Bringing cards with hand rankings is a good idea to do still, even if asking them to make themselves at least halfway familiar with the basic rules in advance.

Know your audience These are D&D players. There is a reasonable expectation that they are way above the average intelligence here. They will grasp the game. They will comprehend the math. You do not need to teach them strategy. Their group is all about fantasy strategy, sometimes vs unknown odds.

Grasping the game -- no question. Comprehending the math -- no question either. But combining all these individual bits of information and deducing sound playing strategies from it, I'm not sure. Of course, given enough time and dedication, they could do it. But my intention with teaching them some basic strategy was to give them a good starting point without having to crunch too much stuff in their heads right at the beginning.

Tournament poker. I could write an essay on why tournament poker is better to teach newbies than cash games, but it would be just that... an essay - TL;DR territory.

Maybe just some bullet points?
Please keep in mind I'm a 99% cash player and not so much a tournament player, so it's also questionable if I even have the required knowledge to make a good teacher in that subject.

Deep Stacks Our Newbie night chips spreads a T5000 tournament with 5/10 blinds. They can limp into pots to their heart's content, because newbies want to play poker, not the folding game. With 500 BB, and everyone limping (and nobody folding) they will get a lot of experience, for really, really cheap.

In the starting phases only I assume? If making a tournament structure I'd definitely start the first level with 300 or more big blinds.

Let the wookie win ok, not win, per-se but dont bring your A-game to pummel a table of newbies. When you know they have the nut flush, but you are sitting there with a full house, they will call whatever you bet. DONT JAM.

Would try my best to not crush them, but there's a fine line between being nice to newbies and softplay to favor individuals. Unsure about how to act, and where to draw the line. Would I stay silent about such a situation? Would I openly tell them about my thoughts after the hand is over? Would I, in your specific example, call if they were to act first and went all in? Would I raise them if they were first to act and bet?

Timing Manage the blinds so there are at least 16-20 BB after 1/2 the night. If they get 2 hours of poker for $10 or $20, they will have ample time to decide if they like poker or not. Not everyone does.

That comes down to deepstacking again. I hate turbo structures as well because skill has a much smaller impact there, hence as a newbie I don't think you can learn much when nearly everything is decided mainly by card luck. Also gives a skewed impression of what modern poker is in terms of skill/luck I believe.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I just thought it would be detrimental to let them play completely as they see fit with no guidance whatsoever. Bringing cards with hand rankings is a good idea to do still, even if asking them to make themselves at least halfway familiar with the basic rules in advance.

It would be detrimental if you were getting ready to toss them into the deep end. You're not. Right now, you are the only one with an edge - you know the game. The rest are on equal footing. They won't need guidance. If there were enough players, I would even just deal (I don't play in the celebrity events). For them, they will be playing a game. It's just like any other board game where the group opens up the box, sits down with the rules and plays. Nobody needs strategy out of the gate. They will pick up on it as they go, presumably at about the same rate.

Mrs Zombie is about to head out for a business trip. I'll respond to the rest after she heads out.

 

[yone]

Every advice I have read sounds great. If you can, it might make things easier if you had a dealer to help the game move along. A non-partial person to help explain certain rules, orders, etc. Also, the newbies will be able to just concentrate on the game without being distracted by the burn cards or who bets first or illegitimate raises. It will definitely be more organized when everyone listens or looks towards one referee. Perhaps you can deal, the playing field will be even without you playing soft

Edit: poker zombie beat me to the post

 

[ekricket]

That sounds like a good idea to lessen this one negative aspect, but I'm still unsure if it is possible to make a 1.5-2 hour tournament structure that doesn't end up being a luckfest.


In a 5c/10c game, and only 5-6 players, I doubt the pot gets so large that often. But I get your reasoning. My hope is that having four or five times your buyin for the evening up your sleeve (and having made your peace already with maybe losing the full amount) would increase their courage a bit. Not like they'd go super maniac or Johnny All-In, but a bit away from the nit level.


That's what I already assumed but wasn't sure about.
Since getting 2-4 additional players ad hoc isn't an option, tournament would land on the back burner for maybe a future session once they got hooked and recruited more people.


My fear here is that for complete newbies, this might create so much confusion that they barely learn anything useful. This however definitely sounds like a plan for when they have a solid grasp and don't mix up things anymore.


Good point. I didn't even think of that aspect of D&D.
However, playing D&D, they are in known waters -- in poker, not yet.


The "you're doing it wrong" is an aspect I haven't considered. I just thought it would be detrimental to let them play completely as they see fit with no guidance whatsoever. Bringing cards with hand rankings is a good idea to do still, even if asking them to make themselves at least halfway familiar with the basic rules in advance.


Grasping the game -- no question. Comprehending the math -- no question either. But combining all these individual bits of information and deducing sound playing strategies from it, I'm not sure. Of course, given enough time and dedication, they could do it. But my intention with teaching them some basic strategy was to give them a good starting point without having to crunch too much stuff in their heads right at the beginning.


Maybe just some bullet points?
Please keep in mind I'm a 99% cash player and not so much a tournament player, so it's also questionable if I even have the required knowledge to make a good teacher in that subject.


In the starting phases only I assume? If making a tournament structure I'd definitely start the first level with 300 or more big blinds.


Would try my best to not crush them, but there's a fine line between being nice to newbies and softplay to favor individuals. Unsure about how to act, and where to draw the line. Would I stay silent about such a situation? Would I openly tell them about my thoughts after the hand is over? Would I, in your specific example, call if they were to act first and went all in? Would I raise them if they were first to act and bet?


That comes down to deepstacking again. I hate turbo structures as well because skill has a much smaller impact there, hence as a newbie I don't think you can learn much when nearly everything is decided mainly by card luck. Also gives a skewed impression of what modern poker is in terms of skill/luck I believe.

Lower your expectations. Your wound up so tight about this that no one is going to enjoy themselves cause they will feed on your anxiousness.
If your planning on having just a two hour session to teach and expect people to enjoy and come back then your fighting a hard battle.
Imagine them trying to teach you everything you need to know to play D&D in two hours, with the expectation that you will be a competent player and enjoy it and come back for more.

 

[Coyote]

I share @Nex 's concerns and reflections, and of course welcome @Poker Zombie 's tons of experience.

It's like trying to square the circle, so I don't have a definite answer.

Theoretically, tourneys are ideal for training and recruitment, having a controllable, guaranteed maximum loss, and allowing players to play with "play money" once they buy in. On the other hand, the ever-shifting criteria for starting hand selection and bet sizing are tougher and harder for beginners to grasp.
The hardest part here in Greece is the social aspect: You just don't invite people (and have them make arrangements for wives and kids) to only tell them after a couple of hours that the party is over for them and they 're free to either fuck off or sink themselves in the fine bourbon whisky you have provided for them.

With cash, it's another effort of trying to make ends meet. If stakes don't have a bite at all, beginners will tend to be unbluffable calling stations and will never fold (in the very same way toddlers with child depression refuse to go to sleep), staying in to marvel at how many and how beautiful combinations a card deck can produce
If the stakes bite just a little bit, they produce 100BB buy-ins X3 = 300BB, let's say, for the night, which will show their teeth and drive most beginners away from that expensive, painful activity.

I would make half of the night a training 5- (or 6-) card stud session with play money, and the hole card(s) rolled up after every hand, for discussion.
Then, I might attempt a .10/.10 FLHE game.
My humble .02

 

[Nex]

Lower your expectations. Your wound up so tight about this that no one is going to enjoy themselves cause they will feed on your anxiousness.

This is why I created this thread. I have zero experience with teaching newbies, and I was almost sure a couple of my assumptions are completely off.

If your planning on having just a two hour session to teach and expect people to enjoy and come back then your fighting a hard battle.
Imagine them trying to teach you everything you need to know to play D&D in two hours, with the expectation that you will be a competent player and enjoy it and come back for more.

My idea was to aim for 3-4 hours in total by the way. The two hours were only for the case of squeezing a tournament in, in addition to cash.
And of course even in four hours I can't expect to make complete newbies evolve to solid players.

My aim is to show them proper poker, i.e. what awaits them if they choose to become serious about it. If I showed them some abomination that may be fun for newbies but was nothing like real poker, then some may get disappointed much later down the road when the game shifts from random fuckery to serious play, if all they liked about poker was the random fuckery. My belief was it's fairer to show them what it really is right up front, so that they don't waste too much time before finding out it's not their thing.

 

[BGinGA]

Lots of good advice in this thread, a fair amount of it from @Poker Zombie (who would be my #1 go-to guy in a situation like this). Here's my take:

• Run a couple of two hour low-cost ($10?) very flat payout NLHE tournaments back-to-back, with a brief hand-exposed demonstration beforehand, and a possible (very brief) strategy discussion between. A six- or eight-handed two-hour turbo can be a lot of fun with plenty of opportunity for skill to prevail, and is far less of a luck-fest than you might think.
• Take another experienced player with you, who can assist with helping others -- two knowledgeable heads are better than one. And use a dedicated dealer -- absolutely do NOT pass-the-deal. New players have enough to grasp without having to mess with the mechanics of a well-ran game. Do that for them.
• Having fun -- win or lose -- is the key. Promote this aspect, and you'll be fine.

 

[ekricket]

My aim is to show them proper poker......... much later down the road when the game shifts from random fuckery to serious play......

I’ve been playing for 40 years at venues all over the world, home games, casinos, underground rooms, cruise ships, on every ocean, sea and continent except Antarctica, and I’m still waiting for this to happen......

 

[Nex]

Lots of good advice in this thread, a fair amount of it from @Poker Zombie (who would be my #1 go-to guy in a situation like this). Here's my take:

• Run a couple of two hour low-cost ($10?) very flat payout NLHE tournaments back-to-back, with a brief hand-exposed demonstration beforehand, and a possible (very brief) strategy discussion between. A six- or eight-handed two-hour turbo can be a lot of fun with plenty of opportunity for skill to prevail, and is far less of a luck-fest than you might think.
• Take another experienced player with you, who can assist with helping others -- two knowledgeable heads are better than one. And use a dedicated dealer -- absolutely do NOT pass-the-deal. New players have enough to grasp without having to mess with the mechanics of a well-ran game. Do that for them.
• Having fun -- win or lose -- is the key. Promote this aspect, and you'll be fine.

I can't bring another poker guy, and neither can I get a dedicated dealer, because I know neither in the area.

What I can do however is deal every hand, and merely have the cut after shuffle done by the nominal dealer. This would leave a lot of work with me but at least it speeds up the game a bit and keeps the heads of others clear to focus on learning the actual game.

What is a "very flat" payout structure for you? Half of the field?

Do you have a 2 hour structure for about 6 players that doesn't drift off into a luckfest? I have plenty of chips between T5-T5,000 at hand so I can cover pretty much any structure up to T200k for this low amount of players. (Exact chip numbers I can work with: a bit down within first post here)

I’ve been playing for 40 years at venues all over the world, home games, casinos, underground rooms, cruise ships, on every ocean, sea and continent except Antarctica, and I’m still waiting for this to happen......

Demonstrated level != Expected level.
I don't expect them to all become poker pros. But I think if you only show them shitty play, they can't really adopt anything but that shitty play (at least chances are low that they get better). Show them proper play and they might become good. Might.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Grasping the game -- no question. Comprehending the math -- no question either. But combining all these individual bits of information and deducing sound playing strategies from it, I'm not sure. Of course, given enough time and dedication, they could do it. But my intention with teaching them some basic strategy was to give them a good starting point without having to crunch too much stuff in their heads right at the beginning.

Think of it like you were teaching chess. You need to tell them what is and what is not allowed. You do not need to teach them gambits. You don't even need to teach simple strategies like "keep pawns in a chain" or "control the center of the board". In the same way you don't need to pot odds, and calculations for M. When they get short stacked, they will "continue to play" with 5 BB with the same excitement and vigor as they did with 500 BB. Don't take that fun from them. There is a very good chance your first game or two, you played the same way.

Maybe just some bullet points?
Please keep in mind I'm a 99% cash player and not so much a tournament player, so it's also questionable if I even have the required knowledge to make a good teacher in that subject.

For what they are learning, cash and tournaments will play the same. However bullet points on why Tournament vs cash for a first game...

• It feels like a game not gambling, because "it's not real money".
• you can give a ton of BB to start, so learning is essentially "free".
• You guarentee how many will turn a profit, and what that profit will be (flatter payout structure).
• You can give 1 "free" rebuy, or (as I do) give 110% to the rebuy stack. It is, as I said, not real money.
• You have control with the blinds to determine the end-game.
• Scheduled breaks allow for time away from the table to stretch, smoke, and give positive feedback.

In the starting phases only I assume? If making a tournament structure I'd definitely start the first level with 300 or more big blinds.

Here's what I use for teaching at home. Travel games are different because the travel set does not have T5s...

This isn't an "ideal" structure for most seasoned players - that's not it's goal. It does give players near-free experience early. Limp with 1 BB, in a $10 tournament with 500 BB to start? Using the independent chip model, that lesson costs exactly 2¢. After 1 hour, it still only costs them 20¢. I wish college only cost me 20 cents per hour.

The second hour is when the "real" poker starts. Players will get KO'ed or rebuy around this point. Rebuys end during the second break.

Would try my best to not crush them, but there's a fine line between being nice to newbies and softplay to favor individuals. Unsure about how to act, and where to draw the line. Would I stay silent about such a situation? Would I openly tell them about my thoughts after the hand is over? Would I, in your specific example, call if they were to act first and went all in? Would I raise them if they were first to act and bet?

If you "softplay" everyone the same, who do you favor?

Basically, you will know sometimes that you got them. Make a value bet, but don't jam. New players are incapable of reading opponents hands. There can be 5 hearts on the table, and they will miss it because they have 3 aces.

That comes down to deepstacking again. I hate turbo structures as well because skill has a much smaller impact there, hence as a newbie I don't think you can learn much when nearly everything is decided mainly by card luck. Also gives a skewed impression of what modern poker is in terms of skill/luck I believe.

Luck is your friend here. Your primary goal isn't to take their money, it is to create new poker players. Players will try (and occasionally succeed) in hitting their flush draw. Root for them. Cheer when they suck out on you. You might lose $10 or $20 that night, but you may create new players. People that enjoy poker are more likely to study the game and become good players. These are the ones you will teach strategy to later. Others will continue to play because it's fun, but never be anymore than a losing player. Teach them "strategy" and you lose them because "the game got too serious".

As a side note, we give all new players an index card:

Do something similar (perhaps without the zombies), where everyone gets free assistance from you when involved in a big hand (provided you are not in it), or perhaps allow them to get a free look at one of your cards (selected at random) if you are in the hand.

Giving the assistance is great, because you can take them in the next room and give a full explanation of what their options are, and why you think those are their options. It can be a real eye-opener to the "next level" of the game... but in my experience most people will not use their card, even when they are tanking and reminded they have that option. Smart people like to live and die by their own choices.

 

[ekricket]

I can't bring another poker guy, and neither can I get a dedicated dealer, because I know neither in the area.

What I can do however is deal every hand, and merely have the cut after shuffle done by the nominal dealer. This would leave a lot of work with me but at least it speeds up the game a bit and keeps the heads of others clear to focus on learning the actual game.

What is a "very flat" payout structure for you? Half of the field?

Do you have a 2 hour structure for about 6 players that doesn't drift off into a luckfest? I have plenty of chips between T5-T5,000 at hand so I can cover pretty much any structure up to T200k for this low amount of players. (Exact chip numbers I can work with: a bit down within first post here)



Demonstrated level != Expected level.
I don't expect them to all become poker pros. But I think if you only show them shitty play, they can't really adopt anything but that shitty play (at least chances are low that they get better). Show them proper play and they might become good. Might.

Very flat? Do a survivor tourney, where when you get down to 20% of the starting field just chop the prize money. So basically one in five gets paid. That should help with your time constraint, and it ends the tourney at the same time for a lot of people, so not a ton of standing around.

 

[saleen121212]

I like all the info in this thread. We have been teaching everyone with cash games. Most look at it as a few hours of fun and drinks with the boys is worth 20 to 40 dollars. They also like the idea of being able to take their money and leave at any time or put more money in to stay. I personally am not into tournaments currently but wouldn't mind playing one every know and then. The thought of grinding for hours when the only prize money goes to a few at the final table is a big turn off to me, I also haven't learned the strat involved with staying ahead of the blinds. On the flip side in a cash game one or two double ups over 7 hours can turn into a fun profitable night. Cash seems much more laid back to me, but I'm not disagreeing, maybe tournament is the way to go with some new players.

 

[ekricket]

The thought of grinding for hours when the only prize money goes to a few at the final table is a big turn off to me, I also haven't learned the strat involved with staying ahead of the blinds. On the flip side in a cash game one or two double ups over 7 hours can turn into a fun profitable night......

Yeah, this is how everyone’s cash sessions end, doubling up a couple times.

In reality you can sit and grind it out at a cash table and go home stuck 4-5 buyins. Not a fun evening.
The attraction for newcomers and tournaments is that it’s a fixed amount to play. They can evaluate their choice up front. Then they get thousands in chips instead of tens of dollars, and they have more low cost situations they can explore - they can play and lose many hands at no more cost.

 

[saleen121212]

Yeah, this is how everyone’s cash sessions end, doubling up a couple times.

In reality you can sit and grind it out at a cash table and go home stuck 4-5 buyins. Not a fun evening.
The attraction for newcomers and tournaments is that it’s a fixed amount to play. They can evaluate their choice up front. Then they get thousands in chips instead of tens of dollars, and they have more low cost situations they can explore - they can play and lose many hands at no more cost.

I didn't say you were guarenteed to double up. I said that's all it takes. In a tournament you can be eaten by blind increases or forced to shove because your short stack, noobs don't know all the strats with tourneys. I get its a fixed price to play and a cash game can be also if you don't buy back in. Either way you can loose fast but I personally feel with a cash game it's easier to play longer if you play tight, again could be wrong as I don't know your tournament structures and I haven't played tourney since high school. Also my games are normally 6 to 8 people max so tourney wouldn't make sense to me.

 

[Nex]

Thank you very much for showing me your point of view, Zombie.
It really does help me understand those people a better.

Think of it like you were teaching chess. You need to tell them what is and what is not allowed. You do not need to teach them gambits. You don't even need to teach simple strategies like "keep pawns in a chain" or "control the center of the board". In the same way you don't need to pot odds, and calculations for M. When they get short stacked, they will "continue to play" with 5 BB with the same excitement and vigor as they did with 500 BB. Don't take that fun from them. There is a very good chance your first game or two, you played the same way.

I have to say though that even though I did the same when I was a newbie, in retrospection I do wish I had the knowledge I have now already. Of course a lot you can only learn with personal experience playing, but a lot can be learned ahead through books and similar resources, i.e. without paying for the lessons at the poker table (which can get unpredictably expensive for the amount of stuff learned). But then, that's just me.

For what they are learning, cash and tournaments will play the same. However bullet points on why Tournament vs cash for a first game...

• It feels like a game not gambling, because "it's not real money".
• you can give a ton of BB to start, so learning is essentially "free".

That should actually be a very big selling point for the first night.

• You guarentee how many will turn a profit, and what that profit will be (flatter payout structure).
• You can give 1 "free" rebuy, or (as I do) give 110% to the rebuy stack. It is, as I said, not real money.

On the other hand, this could promote careless play. I guess those arguments are good for a first session to dive into the subject, but over time, I should gradually evolve the structure towards a more serious format?

• You have control with the blinds to determine the end-game.

That's not so much an issue. Like I don't need them out of the house by a specific time - it won't even be in my house if it happens. My only concern was hitting new players' intake limit for new information.

This isn't an "ideal" structure for most seasoned players - that's not it's goal. It does give players near-free experience early. Limp with 1 BB, in a $10 tournament with 500 BB to start? Using the independent chip model, that lesson costs exactly 2¢. After 1 hour, it still only costs them 20¢. I wish college only cost me 20 cents per hour.

The second hour is when the "real" poker starts. Players will get KO'ed or rebuy around this point. Rebuys end during the second break.

That sounds like a good balance with those intentions in mind.

Luck is your friend here. Your primary goal isn't to take their money, it is to create new poker players. Players will try (and occasionally succeed) in hitting their flush draw. Root for them. Cheer when they suck out on you. You might lose $10 or $20 that night, but you may create new players. People that enjoy poker are more likely to study the game and become good players. These are the ones you will teach strategy to later. Others will continue to play because it's fun, but never be anymore than a losing player. Teach them "strategy" and you lose them because "the game got too serious".

As a side note, we give all new players an index card:
View attachment 216558

Do something similar (perhaps without the zombies), where everyone gets free assistance from you when involved in a big hand (provided you are not in it), or perhaps allow them to get a free look at one of your cards (selected at random) if you are in the hand.

Giving the assistance is great, because you can take them in the next room and give a full explanation of what their options are, and why you think those are their options. It can be a real eye-opener to the "next level" of the game... but in my experience most people will not use their card, even when they are tanking and reminded they have that option. Smart people like to live and die by their own choices.

Thank you for explaining this way of player "evolution". This once more seems to me like starting with luckfests and money merry-go-rounds and then gradually transitioning to more serious/skill-focused conditions will meet these needs best?

Looking at the distribution of recommendations cash vs. tournament in this thread so far, I'll try running a tournament for the first night then, and maybe also the second one in case they want more. Cash game I'd propose maybe for 3rd or 4th night.

 

[Poker Zombie]

On the other hand, this could promote careless play. I guess those arguments are good for a first session to dive into the subject, but over time, I should gradually evolve the structure towards a more serious format?

It will be careless to start, but that is fine. When their T5s are gone, their limping slows down. It becomes their first lesson. Nobody "teaches" it, they figure it out, and it cost maybe 1/100th of their chipstack. Best of all, since they learn it naturally, it's permanent knowledge, unlike book knowledge which is only theoretical until it's used.

That's not so much an issue. Like I don't need them out of the house by a specific time - it won't even be in my house if it happens. My only concern was hitting new players' intake limit for new information.

In my experience D&D players are "Gamers". They can amass a bunch of strategy and rules. It's like a specially developed section of their brain. Puls, You really need to teach them very little. Our Poker School takes 15 minutes (before the game). It teaches 2-deck Dealing (shuffle behind), and Hold'em basics. They have the hand ranking, so that does not need to be committed to memory. The rest is just learning through experience - which involves the occasional mistake.

Thank you for explaining this way of player "evolution". This once more seems to me like starting with luckfests and money merry-go-rounds and then gradually transitioning to more serious/skill-focused conditions will meet these needs best?

Not sure I get this question, but you will find luck is a bigger factor when new players play. They won't be concerned about "hands per hour". They will chat and tell stories more than normal poker players. Some newbies cannot shuffle a deck of cards unless they use a bucket and a stick. Patience is required - they will get there. It's all part of the learning process.

 

[allforcharity]

The only wall to overcome when coming from RPG and strategy gamers over to poker is the *gambling*. Some people will adamantly refuse to risk real money in a game, and some will not. Everybody already sees the social aspects of the game and its benefits.
If you want to recruit, you sell the social aspects of it. I remember while growing up watching my extended family playing "traditional" gambling games almost every week for ridiculously low stakes because it was fun and it was an excuse to get together, not that they were trying to win money or get good or whatever. For the most part, they didn't have lots of money to throw around because everybody's got growing families, and they had to make their own entertainment. They only "recruited" as the circle of local family and very good friends got bigger.

 

[timinater]

Along with what many have said already, one or two small tournaments will do the trick. Same as you teach anyone a game, play a few practice hands so people can get a feel for it. Not to mention most first timers think about tournaments when they think about poker. It's what's on TV!

I had great success teaching my wife's friends how to play by doing just that. They will catch on quickly I'm sure. We offered an impartial phone a friend as well who could offer advice on a hand if need be.

 

[luv2breformed]

We've been having great success with 10c/20c NLH. I try to pitch the cash thing, but most are only familiar with tournaments if at all. It helps that I provide ample whiskey, and everyone has made several comments that if they just drink enough they made their money's worth.

I'm hoping to move to HORSE Limit next, but I'm gonna need A LOT of quarters for that.

 

[Lemonzest]

Something I have noticed about new players is they feel stressed about the money. Our game is small and we play a basic 20 NL cash game. Even still people don't like losing money on something they don't understand. I agree there needs to be some risk but keep the buy ins very low so the monetary loss is not a concern at all for them.

I agree with what others have said....don't teach any strategy, just teach the rules of the game. Let them have fun and decide whether they want to raise or call (they won't fold...lol).

In the beginning the game is just going to showdown and seeing who is good.

I wouldn't overthink it too much. Just get together and help them have fun. If possible mix in some other experienced players so all the teaching burden is not on you.

 

[Nex]

We've been having great success with 10c/20c NLH. I try to pitch the cash thing, but most are only familiar with tournaments if at all. It helps that I provide ample whiskey, and everyone has made several comments that if they just drink enough they made their money's worth.

Got it. Bring booze, bust out the cash chips, felt 'em.
: