The game you suggested was essentially a house game at which only the dealer can win and players can only push or lose. Yes, that's basically robbery, and not poker. Any player with half a brain would simply object and refuse to play. It is a voluntary game, after all.

You're not the only one able to make smarter bets and draws, just as you are not the only one able to make intelligent game choices. You are still earning your edge via skill at poker concepts either way, and everyone is granted the same spread of opportunities by the rotation of the game. Moreover, they can also watch more seasoned players and learn from their choices, just like in every other aspect of poker.

I agree with you on all of this. Like I said, I prefer orbit + 1 myself, as it makes for a more orderly and balanced game. But there's nothing wrong with a new game every hand if that's what makes the players happy.

Low stakes, unraked, friendly home games are whatever your crew is happy with and keeps them coming back. We have a NLH, NLH "blood on the River", and Omaha Hi (limit to two hands per orbit) dealers choice structure. One guy always calls Omaha Hi each orbit. You can play or fold pre. Each game has the same blinds. So we have a very restricted DC game. I believe our group would disintegrate if we allowed a whole plethora of DC games per orbit. In this kind of environment (social home game) it should be "to each their own" and "whatever works" for your crew!

I fully agree changing every hand is ridiculous and skews the game. Orbit+ is simple to track, but is also a bit unfair.

I'm a fan of time. We're not counting hands, we're counting time spent in the flow of a game. If every game is played for the same amount of time, then nobody is afraid to pick the more complicated time-consuming games. Stud haters won't be pissed off that those rounds take longer, and Hold'em fans won't feel ripped off that their game was over before it started.

Same amount of time enjoying every game. I like half an hour per game.

I also like people picking a set of games before starting. This can either put them in a balanced order, or have a bit of fun with scrambling them and seeing what comes next. It also helps people feel more comfortable by knowing what's coming.

We played a few Orbit+1 games but soon switched to orbits that change every time the deal reaches a designated person, usually the person who drew the high card and dealt the first hand of the evening. This method seems to be the most fair, as each player is in each position exactly once for that orbit's game, and there is no overall advantage to choosing a dealer-friendly game.

Re dealer-ante stud games, if a player misses his deal, we back up to that person's deal at the end of the orbit. Unless somebody wants to skip the entire orbit, everybody pays the dealer ante once. It works for us.

We draw cards and the ace is the first dealer. He is also the "game changer." It's easier having it be one person all night.

I think this is mentioned below, but the dealer still has a tiny advantage in stud games still, when the best hand is tied. [Suits do not break ties for who opens or acts first in a stud hand.]

Regardless, the answer to your question is: The more streets or actions a game has, the more advantageous it is to be the last to act on each of those streets and actions.

As a rule, this is why most dealer's choice games run a full orbit (or an orbit+1) of a chosen game, giving every player the opportunity to act in each position on the table.

As in, "Action is on the first A-J-4." And folks call ME a nit!

OK, so it's a non-zero advantage, but how many places after the decimal point before you get to a digit >0?