Why the weak get slaughtered at the circus table (1 Viewer)

DrStrange

4 of a Kind
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
5,622
Reaction score
11,615
Location
Outlet Mall in San Marcos
I have never played circus games, never even seen a table in play. But that likely doesn't matter. I know the weak players get slaughtered there and I know why.

1. The more decisions that get made, the more chances a skilled player has to influence the results in their favor.

200 years ago, poker was played with no draws, no flops and one round of beting. You got dealt a hand and wagered who's was best. Not much more than flipping a coin (unless you cheated). In a hold'em game you get four chances to bet and see how the other players bet. In a circus game, there might be more than four rounds of beting and some choices in how to split your hand(s) and multiple games happening at the same time. Yikes!

2. Everything you think you know is wrong.

Weak players fall back on what they "know" about other games. But that is a deadly trap - think how hold'em players get in trouble playing Omaha because they don't understand how the relative hand values change. So we get a few players who don't know the games (and it sounds like some are remarkably complex). They fall back on what they know about hold'em or Omaha, but its wrong. The suckers make decisions based on an inaccurate understanding of the game and take the short end of bet time after time.

3. Variance is going to overwhelm skill more than people expect.

Truth is, the circus tables would die without this. Imagine playing a round of bridge with the Dr and his regular partner. Anyone who isn't a skilled bridge player is going to lose essentially 100% of the time. The level of variation in the results gets overwhelmed by the skill edge. I doubt most people would even play a single rubber. Now consider some multi board, hand splitting high/low game. Chaos ensues. Even when you lose you win money (kind of like penny slots) - put in 25% of the money but only get back a 1/16th. On a lucky night, you'll book a $1,000 win and you don't have enough of a sample to know that over time you are losing $50/hr sitting in the game.

4. Aggression will further degrade the results of a weak player.

Switch the game to small stakes limit rather than big bet poker and the weaker players will start doing better in most cases - still losing in a big way though. But a weak player, facing a "big" bet {meaning the loss of the bet hurts} is going to make errors and fold too often because they can't judge the situation - hell they often don't even understand the situtaion. (and no doubt call when they shouldn't frusterated at being pushed off profitable hands.)

5. Analitical players are going to be at a serious disadvantage.

The math in many circus games is so complex that most people couldn't do it with a note pad and calculator with unlimited time. The better players have a "feel" for the right play based on expereince and competence. High level chess plays do this too - make the best moves not because they can completely think through the situtation but based on "it feels right". The weaker, novice players don't have useful feelings about which play is best, and certainly don't have the nerve to bet serious money to back up such feelings. In the end, even solid players are going to fall back on basic donkey poker and hope the Poker Gods shower the luck on them.

6. But it is only one or two sessions and the circus table sounds like FUN!

So in the end the weak players spew money in a way they mostly wouldn't if we played every week. Not that there aren't plenty of fish who do come back again and again. The worst players in my games love mixed games night even though they get hammered. Their judgement is so bad, they actually think mixed games are to their advantage.

So there you go. I'd love responses from the crowd that plays these games, but I'd be seriously surprised if I got this totally wrong.

DrStrange
 
I forgot to add a note about decision fatigue. The more complicated the game, the more the decisions wear you down. The expereinced players are making a bunch of choices almost thoughtlessly. The new guy/gal have to think even the most basic things through carefully. It will not take long for them the switch to a "slot machine" mentality rather than an advantage mentality even though the player might be a dedicated value player.
 
I suspect you are mostly right. I play circus games in 2 settings:

With skilled players at bergs', Guinness', at meet ups.

With less experienced players at micro stakes.

With the skilled players, it is a different scenario. We all had various learning curves, but the level of the game rose pretty quickly. Most if not all the players in this pool are casino poker winning players.

In the micro game, the players are also learning and the level of play is rising, but a little slower. Since most of the player pool is similarly inexperienced, they're not getting slaughtered. There is enough variance that a couple more experienced players can't crush the game completely mercilessly. Though I tend to win pretty often in this game, I'm also not afraid to be in for 8-10 buyins in a single night.

So in both these settings, there aren't a few fish getting torn up by the Sharks like you might see in a public card room.
 
1. The more decisions that get made, the more chances a skilled player has to influence the results in their favor.

200 years ago, poker was played with no draws, no flops and one round of beting. You got dealt a hand and wagered who's was best. Not much more than flipping a coin (unless you cheated). In a hold'em game you get four chances to bet and see how the other players bet. In a circus game, there might be more than four rounds of beting and some choices in how to split your hand(s) and multiple games happening at the same time. Yikes!
There really aren't additional rounds of betting in these games. Sure, people split their hands in SOHE but it's not like there is a tried-and-true "by the book" method of splitting hands. As you say, 200 years ago it was simply 5 card stud. Not long ago 7-stud was still the most popular game in the poker room, and who ever heard of BigO ten years ago? Now it's played in casinos... hell, at one time I'm sure Omaha was considered a circus game. Evolution of poker I say.

2. Everything you think you know is wrong.

Weak players fall back on what they "know" about other games. But that is a deadly trap - think how hold'em players get in trouble playing Omaha because they don't understand how the relative hand values change. So we get a few players who don't know the games (and it sounds like some are remarkably complex). They fall back on what they know about hold'em or Omaha, but its wrong. The suckers make decisions based on an inaccurate understanding of the game and take the short end of bet time after time.
The games really are not "remarkably complex"... it's like buying a new board game and trying to figure out how the game plays by reading the rule book. You can spend half an hour reading the thing from beginning to end and still have little idea of how it plays but once you start it becomes clear in short order. Yes it takes a bit of time for hold'em players to figure out their broadway isn't worth dick on a paired and flushed board but it doesn't take long to realize it's not good to land in the Molasses Swamp.

3. Variance is going to overwhelm skill more than people expect.

Truth is, the circus tables would die without this. Imagine playing a round of bridge with the Dr and his regular partner. Anyone who isn't a skilled bridge player is going to lose essentially 100% of the time. The level of variation in the results gets overwhelmed by the skill edge. I doubt most people would even play a single rubber. Now consider some multi board, hand splitting high/low game. Chaos ensues. Even when you lose you win money (kind of like penny slots) - put in 25% of the money but only get back a 1/16th. On a lucky night, you'll book a $1,000 win and you don't have enough of a sample to know that over time you are losing $50/hr sitting in the game.
Weak hold'em players can book a big win on a lucky night and be clueless to the fact that they are losing the same $50 per hour. But to your example I've yet to meet anyone at the circus tables who puts in 25%, gets back 1/16th and feels like they won :)

4. Aggression will further degrade the results of a weak player.

Switch the game to small stakes limit rather than big bet poker and the weaker players will start doing better in most cases - still losing in a big way though. But a weak player, facing a "big" bet {meaning the loss of the bet hurts} is going to make errors and fold too often because they can't judge the situation - hell they often don't even understand the situtaion. (and no doubt call when they shouldn't frusterated at being pushed off profitable hands.)
This seems geared towards new players who don't understand the rules, who have little experience with a specific game or who are playing above their bankroll. Otherwise it's no different than hold'em players making errors in Omaha.

5. Analitical players are going to be at a serious disadvantage.

The math in many circus games is so complex that most people couldn't do it with a note pad and calculator with unlimited time. The better players have a "feel" for the right play based on expereince and competence. High level chess plays do this too - make the best moves not because they can completely think through the situtation but based on "it feels right". The weaker, novice players don't have useful feelings about which play is best, and certainly don't have the nerve to bet serious money to back up such feelings. In the end, even solid players are going to fall back on basic donkey poker and hope the Poker Gods shower the luck on them.
The math... meh. I understand the math and am sure I use it subliminally but there is little room for number crunchers in the circus ;)

6. But it is only one or two sessions and the circus table sounds like FUN!
The circus table is CONFIRMED fun :D
 
It is mostly just #2, and specifically playing hands that are dangerous trap hands that newbies think are worth their whole stack. I.e. playing a Hi only hand and getting freerolled by the nut low.

#6 is also true, so much so that nobody ever wants to play holdem again.
 
People who believe the word "poker" means hold'em (and only hold'em) are my favorite people to play with.
I had it in my mind that your group was mostly holdem with a little omaha thrown in... does your group play the circus games? I'm in withdrawel already.
 
This thread reminds me of Chris Reslock's interview on the Bernard Lee Show of 3/22/16. Referring to NLHE, he said:

"Kindergarten poker . . . the game that they invented for people who wanted to gamble on poker but weren't smart enough to play cards."​

As mentioned ITT, mixed games are simply more fun than a steady diet of NLHE. @bentax1978 put it so well:

Still trying to figure out what to do with only two cards.

#circustablewithdrawal

My sentiments exactly.
 
There really aren't additional rounds of betting in these games. Sure, people split their hands in SOHE but it's not like there is a tried-and-true "by the book" method of splitting hands.

I would take @DrStrange's side in this one. Games like Dramaha, NL 2-7 TD, and NL Badugi require in some cases twice as many decisions as a typical big bet flop game.

And even in games like Dramaha and SOHE, where players only have to make one additional decision, that single decision has an impact far greater than a single street's betting in a NLHE hand, not just for the damage that can be done by a poor decision, but the opportunity cost inherent in a bad decision.
 
I would take @DrStrange's side in this one. Games like Dramaha, NL 2-7 TD, and NL Badugi require in some cases twice as many decisions as a typical big bet flop game.

And even in games like Dramaha and SOHE, where players only have to make one additional decision, that single decision has an impact far greater than a single street's betting in a NLHE hand, not just for the damage that can be done by a poor decision, but the opportunity cost inherent in a bad decision.
I agree with this, I certainly didn't say those things aren't important. I simply said there arent more rounds of betting.

Per the Dramaha and SOHE decisions I pointed out there isn't a by-the-book way of splitting hands. Throw six random cards on a table full of seven guys who have played a good amount of SOHE and you're still going to get a number of different splits. I personally tend to go split different than most would.
 
I agree with this, I certainly didn't say those things aren't important. I simply said there arent more rounds of betting.

Per the Dramaha and SOHE decisions I pointed out there isn't a by-the-book way of splitting hands. Throw six random cards on a table full of seven guys who have played a good amount of SOHE and you're still going to get a number of different splits. I personally tend to go split different than most would.

I think SOHE is more debatable. Given the current strategies employed by most players in Dramaha, I think there is a very clear right and wrong strategy for drawing.
 
I think SOHE is more debatable. Given the current strategies employed by most players in Dramaha, I think there is a very clear right and wrong strategy for drawing.
This weekend was my first time playing Dramaha, can't really comment other than to say I found decisions to be more or less common sense so I would lean towards agreeing.
 
We play some semi-circus games I suppose, but not for really high stakes. One other thing you need to factor in is alcohol, at least for my game. And it is kind of fun to gamble a little at the circus table if you are staying within your means. I don't play poker for a living. Sure I try to win, but I also am willing to take some risks in the name of a little boozy fun!
 
I had it in my mind that your group was mostly holdem with a little omaha thrown in... does your group play the circus games? I'm in withdrawel already.

Mainly HORSE and badugi. Either 3/6 limit or a spread limit.
 
...they get slaughtered if they don't try to learn the new games well. Tomorrow night I'm driving the school bus....right of the f@cking cliff!

My guys like when I get to host and its circus time. 7 noobs to a few of the games. Plus lots of moonshine...I expect to lose 5-8 buy ins but when do you get a chance at a table full of virgins?
 
Agree with most of the observations in the OP with possible exception of #5 "analytical players at a disadvantage." If slavishly following the math, then I agree bc I take the Dr's point to be "maff iss hard" at the circus and errors are costly. But it is still a key poker skill.

Decision Fatigue definitely a bigger factor at the circus. Not just more frequent and complex decisions but length of session takes its toll. I've played 35+ hour holdem sessions and felt capable. But the weekly 11 hour mixed game I host can be a grind, sometimes I wish I could leave lol.

The variance is brutal but also benefits the game when losing players are on a heater. At my last 4/8 O8/omaha game a player ran his last $4 to $860. A noted villain at my big bet game has run $30 to $600-900 at least three times. Viva la variance. ;)
 
I would take @DrStrange's side in this one. Games like Dramaha, NL 2-7 TD, and NL Badugi require in some cases twice as many decisions as a typical big bet flop game.

And even in games like Dramaha and SOHE, where players only have to make one additional decision, that single decision has an impact far greater than a single street's betting in a NLHE hand, not just for the damage that can be done by a poor decision, but the opportunity cost inherent in a bad decision.

Agree that the NL draw games are very complex. Even single draw NL lowball is frightening. I have only played limit dramaha. Because I invariably draw at least 4, I would get slaughtered in the big bet version.
 
I'll take notes and post a few strategy threads after. Then you can laugh your ass off. 8 players tonight. Nobody has ever played SOHE, Badugi, Crazy Pineapple, and I'm the only one to ever play Omaha. I have a gallon of shine that has soaked in JD wood chips for 6 weeks ready. I'm sure nothing bad could happen.
 
I'll take notes and post a few strategy threads after. Then you can laugh your ass off. 8 players tonight. Nobody has ever played SOHE, Badugi, Crazy Pineapple, and I'm the only one to ever play Omaha. I have a gallon of shine that has soaked in JD wood chips for 6 weeks ready. I'm sure nothing bad could happen.

I'll play a hand of SOHE via texting :) I think I have international texting. Fuck it, lol............Damn I need SAT. to get here. I'm jonesing for some action.
 
1. The more decisions that get made, the more chances a skilled player has to influence the results in their favor.

This part is 100% on point.

2. Everything you think you know is wrong.

This too. Hold'em players in particular are liable to make huge, costly mistakes. The biggest ones are over-valuing mediocre draws and putting too much stock in having the bare nuts when there are cards to come.

3. Variance is going to overwhelm skill more than people expect.

Actually, you'd be surprised. Some of the high-only games are wildly variable, but a lot of the more complex games—especially split-pot games—are not as variable as you might think, when played prudently.

Just for example, Omaha high-low is a very low-variance game for a skilled player. SOHE is another good example, as well as Drawmaha. Of course, if you play loosely, these games are a whirlwind of variance, but a skilled player will find a lot of situations where he can have half the pot locked up and be freerolling for the other half, or have dominating equity both ways. That might feel like variance to the weak player, but it's really not.

4. Aggression will further degrade the results of a weak player.

Absolutely. Especially when you're first learning a complicated game, being against aggressive players is tough. You don't get to see a lot of showdowns and thus have a hard time judging what they're betting with, as well as what kinds of hands will win at showdown.

5. Analitical players are going to be at a serious disadvantage.

I agree to a point. Players who overly rely on simple outs-counting will be at a disadvantage because, yes, the math is often far more complicated than figuring out hold'em equity.

But the math that underlies poker is a critical element of successfully analyzing new games and assessing your standing in a hand. It's particularly important in split-pot games. Of course, you need to have good general poker sense and proportional reasoning, not just a by-the-book understanding of basic poker math.

6. But it is only one or two sessions and the circus table sounds like FUN!

It's totally a blast, but I will say that longer sessions can be difficult. That bit about decision fatigue is totally true, and you have to be on guard for it.
 
I have never played circus games, never even seen a table in play. But that likely doesn't matter. I know the weak players get slaughtered there and I know why.

1. The more decisions that get made, the more chances a skilled player has to influence the results in their favor.

200 years ago, poker was played with no draws, no flops and one round of beting. You got dealt a hand and wagered who's was best. Not much more than flipping a coin (unless you cheated). In a hold'em game you get four chances to bet and see how the other players bet. In a circus game, there might be more than four rounds of beting and some choices in how to split your hand(s) and multiple games happening at the same time. Yikes!

2. Everything you think you know is wrong.

Weak players fall back on what they "know" about other games. But that is a deadly trap - think how hold'em players get in trouble playing Omaha because they don't understand how the relative hand values change. So we get a few players who don't know the games (and it sounds like some are remarkably complex). They fall back on what they know about hold'em or Omaha, but its wrong. The suckers make decisions based on an inaccurate understanding of the game and take the short end of bet time after time.

3. Variance is going to overwhelm skill more than people expect.

Truth is, the circus tables would die without this. Imagine playing a round of bridge with the Dr and his regular partner. Anyone who isn't a skilled bridge player is going to lose essentially 100% of the time. The level of variation in the results gets overwhelmed by the skill edge. I doubt most people would even play a single rubber. Now consider some multi board, hand splitting high/low game. Chaos ensues. Even when you lose you win money (kind of like penny slots) - put in 25% of the money but only get back a 1/16th. On a lucky night, you'll book a $1,000 win and you don't have enough of a sample to know that over time you are losing $50/hr sitting in the game.

4. Aggression will further degrade the results of a weak player.

Switch the game to small stakes limit rather than big bet poker and the weaker players will start doing better in most cases - still losing in a big way though. But a weak player, facing a "big" bet {meaning the loss of the bet hurts} is going to make errors and fold too often because they can't judge the situation - hell they often don't even understand the situtaion. (and no doubt call when they shouldn't frusterated at being pushed off profitable hands.)

5. Analitical players are going to be at a serious disadvantage.

The math in many circus games is so complex that most people couldn't do it with a note pad and calculator with unlimited time. The better players have a "feel" for the right play based on expereince and competence. High level chess plays do this too - make the best moves not because they can completely think through the situtation but based on "it feels right". The weaker, novice players don't have useful feelings about which play is best, and certainly don't have the nerve to bet serious money to back up such feelings. In the end, even solid players are going to fall back on basic donkey poker and hope the Poker Gods shower the luck on them.

6. But it is only one or two sessions and the circus table sounds like FUN!

So in the end the weak players spew money in a way they mostly wouldn't if we played every week. Not that there aren't plenty of fish who do come back again and again. The worst players in my games love mixed games night even though they get hammered. Their judgement is so bad, they actually think mixed games are to their advantage.

So there you go. I'd love responses from the crowd that plays these games, but I'd be seriously surprised if I got this totally wrong.

DrStrange

Ok Dr.

Now that you have at least a couple of circus game sessions from the Rumble in your back pocket, any more to add? I don't think things escalated to what happens at some meet ups with regard to stack sizes but that could have happened very quickly as wallets were ready.
 
I have a greater appreciation for the vast gulf between fixed/spread limit vs pot limit. Almost all of my Omaha and O8 experience has been playing low stakes spread limits.
 
It's not really a circus table if all of the clowns don't show up. :D

That's why I love hosting the BBotB. I get to be the only straight man at a table of clowns. And hold on as I go for the roller coaster ride of a lifetime.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom