I don't know that anybody else is doing it, but we have had reasonable success running Multi Action Poker at our home game, so I thought I'd tell you what we've learned so far.

If you've never heard of Multi Action Poker, here are the Cliff's:

Two games run simultaneously, each one using a unique set of chips and distinguishable cards. It was spread temporarily at the Aria. Here's a thread from a while back:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...table-1273141/

We first played Limit Texas and Limit Omaha High. It worked better than expected. We then tried PLO and PLO8. It was just a tad more confusing than our first experiment led us to believe it would be.

The last five games we have spread Tahoe and Texas, both No Limit. To keep things distinct, we use a four-color deck for Tahoe and a two-color deck for Texas. We call Tahoe the red game, because the card backs are red, as is the button. The dealer will also say "Your action on Tahoe" or "Your action on 3-card." Texas is the "blue game." (Games could also be distinct by using a combination of poker and bridge cards, or jumbo and regular fonts. I would not suggest using complementary decks of a single setup, however, as that very well might get confusing.)

The only "hardware upgrade" we have added (besides a colored dealer button and extra set of chips) is to place two colored circles in front of each player, where players are encouraged to place bets. Players put their live cards right between their chipstack and the red or blue circle. It was very easy for a player involved in the other game to quickly look at the table and see exactly what the action was--who bet, who called, and how many behind may be yet to act.

Originally I used red and blue construction paper cut in circles the size of compact discs, which was certainly satisfactory...but the construction paper was not as durable as I would like. After four hours, some of the paper circles were showing wear. It is not a big deal, of course, but as edges wrinkle up off the felt, there is a chance that cards might be inadvertently exposed during the deal. Yesterday I used some "ultra-removable" sticky labels that I bought at Office Max. I printed red and blue circles on them with my printer. If they were only a little more durable, they would be absolutely perfect. They can be picked up and re-applied as needed. If Multi Action Poker proves to have enduring appeal, I'll get some vinyl stickers made at the local printing shop (out of bumper sticker material).

I have an oval table. The dealers sat opposite, but off of center, from each other. Another host has a large circular table, and it is even better for Multi Action because there is so much table space between the two pots and two boards.

The games really hum along smoothly. We didn't have any more misdeals or acting out of turn than we have in any other home game. We broke the four-hour game into four one-hour shifts, with one player serving as dedicated dealer for each game for the hour. At the conclusion of the hour, we all stood up, moved our chips one position to the left, sat back down, and started the clock on the next shift. We started out asking that the dealer only play the game that he/she dealt for the hour. Five games in, we have begun to allow the dealer to play both games. (I really think it is better to have the dealer play only the one game; but if a couple of players arrive late, our 8-handed table is 6-handed, meaning each game plays with only five players...and I understand why people don't like that.)

Obviously, some dealers are better than others. The funny thing is that if one dealer is bad, it's not as bad as you might fear, because there's always the other game to occupy your attention. Also, since everybody gets a chance in the dealer's box, everybody suddenly starts to realize what makes for smooth dealing. Without my saying anything, people are starting to gather the muck neatly, stack burn cards separately, and hold off on pulling in any bets until the action is closed.

We kept two distinct banks, one for each game. If a player went busto in one side, we encouraged him to reload that game from cash, though in one instance we let him cash one game's chips for the other, with the standing rule that no money could leave the table, and he must leave the table minimum in the donor stack.

I think that once we get players that have all played Multi Action, we will play No Limit Texas and Pot Limit Omaha. There's no real reason that we couldn't play Texas/O8. Yes, O8 will run more slowly, but when Omaha slows down to split pots or for a person to go in the tank, the Texas game will be humming along to keep the other players happy.

From our experience playing PLO/O8, I think that dueling Omaha games is not the killer application for Multi Action. Players were far too often involved in both hands, and since each hand held four cards, it was much more confusing as to which hole cards went with which board (even the local Omaha specialists occasionally turned the wrong hole cards faceup at showdown). With a 2-card hand and a 3-card hand, it really is surprisingly straightforward.

For that matter, I will not be surprised if we can eventually play NLHE on one side and Dealer's Choice on the other side. Dealer's Choice in our community is spread in three or four hosts' houses, but invariably somebody bellyaches about Stud or Badeucy, or some other game. It seems to me that playing two games simultaneously should keep the bellyaching to a minimum. Not only will there be another game going on in those cases where a whiner dislikes the dealer's choice, but with twice as many decisions to make, complainers have less than half the time to air grievances.

Even though the game has worked, it would be a stretch to call it immensely popular. It doesn't exactly appeal to newbies. (Though, to reiterate, it's not as confusing as naysayers fear. Any home game that has a host with a 2+2 membership takes the game seriously enough to succeed with Multi Action.) There is much less time for socializing than a typical game. It isn't for everyone, in other words.

Another caveat: you really want all the players to be friendly and trustworthy. There is so much going on that it would be very easy for a single bad actor to short pots or run other angles.

For the record, we played two $.50 blinds in each game. Minimum buyin was $30/side, maximum: $60. These stakes put us squarely in the middle of the road in our local community. Everybody is playing for fun. Nobody is trying to grind out living expenses, but we have priced out the curious newbies who want to test their luck for $20. Bear in mind, we ask that players have another buyin in their pocket, so even at $.50 blinds, I am asking them to come to the game with $240.

I'm happy to answer any questions. If anybody else adds this to the mix, let us know how it works and what tweaks you've added to help keep the action smooth.

Complex. What's the advantage of running Multi Action Poker

More action and the ability to play two different games simultaneously. Think of it as live two-tabling.

I thought it was an interesting idea when the Aria did it a while back, but most of my players' heads would asplode if I ever tried it.

I don't see how it can be worth the work. One hand (times two) in this game would take longer than two hands with one set of chips and cards, simply because of the questions and confusion and debates.

I was interested when I heard about it. Not convinced that it's for our regulars, who are social and not always paying attention as it is. I'd definitely play with a crowd that could handle it.

Put a dealer on each side of the table, and you are on to a winner imo.

Likely a fun time for some folks, but a potential nitemare in our self dealt game with varying levels of skill with the cards. Also we have varying levels of awareness of what's going on, due to several common homegame diversions.

Multi Action Poker is not as confusing as detractors fear it might be.

I guess I buried the lede in my original post. I should have opened with that, restated it, reiterated it a time or two, and then closed with it.

We have played with married couples who play no more than three times a year, young Internet gunslingers, retirees, and all sorts in between, and no heads asploded. Let me repeat myself: Multi Action Poker is not that complicated; certainly not as complicated as critics fear it might be.

If you have taught your ragtag bunch of wild-card-namin', No Peeky card-peelin', Guts-callin', around-the-kitchen-table-sittin' players to post blinds and follow a dealer button, why you have already taken a greater leap than simply adding another dealer to a functional flop game. Allow me to reiterate: Multi Action Poker is not nearly as confusing as detractors fear it will be.

And it's fast. Players come prepared for a lot of hands, so each dealer deals more hands/shift than in a typical single dealer game. Gone is the Hollywooding, the "I Can't Believe I'm Going to Lay This Down" theatrics before a fold, the rabbit hunting, and the pointless clawing through the muck to prove that somebody folded the case Two preflop. Players have mentally clicked "Raise Any" or "Fold" before the action gets to them and they act and move on. I am not kidding when I say Multi Action Players get more than twice as many hands per hour than in a typical homegame.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me just close with this: Multi Action Poker is really pretty simple. It's certainly not the train wreck that detractors fear it might be.

I read your latest post carefully, but won't this be as confusing, as complicated, and the train wreck I fear it will be?

Seriously, if the low number of hands per hour is a major complaint, this will keep the low attention span crowd happier.

My players are incapable of giving this stuff up. You, sir, are a bold-faced LIAR!

Eh, who knows? If we get bored at HPI maybe I'll run this for an hour as a test.

And if they can't post blinds and follow a dealer button? Aside from the absence of wild cards, guts, etc? I suppose my original fears stand.

My crew would really miss most of the stuff that your comments said would be gone. I am serious. No contempt for your posts intended certainly, to each (crew) their own. Good luck to you.

I admit Multi Action is not for everybody. Certainly, if your players can't follow the action in a single game, then they will struggle with two games. I understand that.

And plenty of players capable of keeping up with two games simultaneously might miss the social banter and relaxed pace that is synonymous with most home games. I get that, too.

So, there are plenty of reasons Multi Action might not succeed in your particular game. Nobody will hurt my feelings for opting not to try it. Nobody will hurt my feelings if they try it and don't enjoy it. But if you're even the slightest bit intrigued by the notion of getting twice as many hands in per hour, I want my experience to give you the courage to give it a try.

I know that the default reaction is to think this is too confusing (and I was originally nervous about that, as well), but I'm here to tell you that it only takes ten minutes or so until all players get into the groove. After that, it hums along with no more misdeals or acting out of turn than in an ordinary game.




(I figured it might be of some benefit to explain what about Multi Action Poker appeals to me. I chose to give it a try for a couple of reasons:

One, the novelty of it appealed to me.

Two, some of my friends from the immediate neighborhood were hassling me to host again. I had not hosted a neighborhood game for some time, because the city-wide Meetup group I discovered a few years back had been so good to me. The neighborhood players only want to play Texas Hold 'Em, which by itself bores me. Multi Action gave me the opportunity to host a game that the (very recreational) neighborhood players had some familiarity with, while at the same time offering something for the (obviously more experienced) players in the city-wide group.

Three, the stakes of Multi Action poker end up being perfect for me. I play in home games for the fun of it. I am lucky to have a good job that pays me very well. Even in my most lucrative session at a home game I have never approached my job's hourly wage. On the other hand, I am no longer interested in playing $20 or $30 tournaments...not because the stakes are so small, but because the quality of the play is so bad. To host a game in the city-wide Meetup group among the players that would be most fulfilling (read: challenging) for me would require me to host stakes that I have made a conscious decision not to entertain. I want to host a fun game. There are players in the city who are earning their living player poker (and I very much like playing against them at other people's houses). I just don't want anybody's rent money on my poker felt.

By hosting middle-of-the-road stakes, I have selected against the total newbies, as well as protected my neighborhood friends from the ringers in the community who would eat them alive (even the action junkies who like to multi-table aren't going to be interested in a $60 maximum buyin game). And, by doing it as Multi Action, I have rekindled a slight bit of enthusiasm for Texas Holdem.

Fourth, my wife will play Multi Action, though I don't think I could get her to forego whatever reality show she is watching this season with the teenagers for a game of Texas Holdem exclusively.

I realize that not everybody has a local Meetup group to draw from. Our Meetup group is very active, and there's no doubt that without it I wouldn't dare try to recruit eight players interested in Multi Action.

Again, you don't have to explain your reasons for not wanting to or not having the courage to try Multi Action. I understand that it is not for everybody. I am only trying to encourage the adventurous and innovative.)

That's a good post. Thanks for hanging in there with us. None of my posts were meant to be critical, or to imply this is not good for anyone to play.

Mostly, I am posting for my amusement, but it is not meant to be at the expense of anyone else. I am mainly making fun of us, after all.

I never felt offended or criticized. I hope I didn't come off as defensive.

I only responded because the naysayers seemed to be carrying the discussion, and I didn't want some adventurous soul somewhere or sometime to encounter the discussion and reason, "Well, all the eggheads on 2+2 seemed unanimous that it was a bad idea, so it must be a bad idea."

It's tough to judge tone when reading - you might have sounded a little defensive, but in fairness some folks in the thread sounded a little on the attack. I don't think anyone really meant it that way, we're just chatting.

BTW, your user name cracks me up - took me until tonight to get it.

Yeah, just like I might have sounded a little dickish.

I still don't get the name.

Good. I only meant that I did not think it was a good thing for our crew. Unsophisticated we are , young Jedi! Obviously it is something that works for you and your group just fine. Thanks for the posting.

Think Saturday Night Live circa early 1980s.

Would it be a "Buckwheat" song perchance?

Babwa Wawa?

I am slow.

Sorry for the derail, OP.

I will never know how you got that. I'm impressed Bene got it with a hint, though she might have powers of prescience we cannot begin to comprehend.

For instance, she subtly made wukinpanub pick that screen name just so she could roll her eyes at us.

Threatened him with her gom jabbar ldo.

Oh, their ways can be much more subtle than that.