A Chat With Chad, Creator of California Hold’em - Pt 1

A few weeks ago, I asked Chad Andrews, creator of California Hold’em, some questions about his new poker game. My apologies for taking so long to post his answers. I’ve left our interview in Q&A format because Chad struck me as being so eloquent. Here is part 1 of 2.

(1) When did you come up with California Hold’em?

This sounds like some made up marketing story, but the game was literally born on a Hollywood movie lot.

I co-own a Post Production film company called Orbit Digital and our offices are here on “The Lot,” which was the old Warner Hollywood studio. Besides being where Billy Wilder and other Hollywood icons shot a lot of classics, it’s the same lot that “Lucky You,” the upcoming poker movie with Drew Barrymore (featuring cameos from many top pros) was shot this summer. Around that time, the idea came to me, though I really don’t think the two were related. But I have to admit that seeing Barry Greenstein got me more fired up than the times when Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller were lurking about every day. I guess that makes me a poker fan.

I’ve been a poker fan for years and play regularly online. It was my hope to qualify for the WSOP this year and I played my heart out in a few qualifying tournaments, only to take bad beat after bad beat in the later stages.

After qualifying for a tournament where the top 3 positions went to Vegas for the Main Event, I was down to the final 18, and in 5th place, when after a textbook raise with pocket kings (three and a half times the blinds when those blinds were huge,) I was called by the big blind. The flop came all low cards with no flush or straight draws likely. I bet and was raised all in. I knew the player to be pretty loose so I called quickly and was glad to see my opponent had only middle pair.

He had called me with 7-5 off suit, for about a third of his stack. He had slightly more chips than me. After he caught a 5 on the river to knock me out (instead of giving me the chip lead,) I didn’t consider this just a bad beat. I considered this another episode in a long line of hands that proved to me that too many loose callers, especially in tournaments, is not a great thing for poker. I noticed that pros were having the same kinds of experiences regularly. I can only imagine investing several days instead of hours only to lose that way.

Though I agree to an extent that ‘poker is poker’, I feel the game should have a competitive structure that is more consistently reflective of ability and less random. It’s commonly said that in order to win a Texas Hold’em tournament, you have to survive a few ‘coin flips.’ Forgive me if I’m wrong, but if I have to survive multiple random events, aren’t the results themselves random?

My game provides greater distinction between hands and also provides skilled player some protection from bad beats.

It is my belief that the limits and numbers where most people play poker in today’s environment were never envisioned for Texas Hold’em. I think that game has been outgrown to an extent, except at high limits where skilled players congregate and attempt to play optimally. The original World Series of Poker, in 1970, had a grand total of 7 players. There were over 5,600 in 2005. The game was in need of some modifications that preserved its integrity but created a fair playing field. That’s what I set out to do and I feel I did optimally.

Poker is largely ego driven and it’s hard to find players who admit to losing. But I was losing and mad as hell! I knew there was a need when I realized that though I almost always got to the top 10% of tournaments, I still lost more than won in tournaments and when I did, I always (with VERY few exceptions) had the best hand! It occurred to me that in those hands when I played an opponent perfectly into a making poor decision, I wanted a bit more of a real-world reflection of that fact and some more protection from luck — just to the degree where real-world results were fair.

I realized that the two places where Texas Hold’em provides the highest proportion of bad beats were in low-limit ring games and low-entry tournaments. These are also the places where the vast majority play. So I saw a real need in the marketplace for a game that provided a reflection of relative skill. Then I figured out the best way to accomplish my goals.

By making the changes I did, I preserved the same rules and game play of Texas Hold’em by making the results fairer to those who play well.

(2) What drove you to it, in particular?

I’m into justice. I’m a news junky and into politics. I’m passionate about fairness. Not just in cards, but in life. I have a very strong work ethic and a sense of ethics in general. I believe that when one applies himself in life he ought to be rewarded accordingly.

I don’t care if you’re a great cab driver or the best wood worker, there is artistry in excellence. That is what drew me to poker. Top players are artists to me. They unfold a strategy as fluidly as an artist fills a canvas. I’ve seen such beauty in the inner workings of a great mind using subtlety to deduce the most brilliant deductions that it seems almost criminal when a player does everything right and gets beat by mediocrity.

Understanding that that dynamic is necessary to an extent to draw in the ‘fish’, I look at golf as a more evolved competitive environment than Texas Hold’em. In a field of 5,600 golfers, some unknown player would undoubtedly be in the hunt from pure luck, such as hitting a couple of eagles. But Tiger Woods would always have a chance and would be in the final twenty more often than not. The same simply cannot be said about competitive Texas Hold’em, as evidenced by the WSOP, amongst other events.

My game’s changes are pretty minor, but the changes provide enough protection to skilled players to weather the randomness injected by maniacs. Those maniacs are weeded out more quickly and in the later stages of a tournament (or in ring games.) All in all, the better players have more of a chance of taking pots that they have earned. Nobody likes to have something they earned taken away. It just isn’t right. And whereas it’s necessary to poker to have those things happen in a certain proportion, bad beats should not routinely be the deciding factor as to whether one wins or loses. In low limit ring games and in tournaments with large fields, that’s just the reality of Texas Hold’em.

(3) Why did you choose just two new card values (11, 12)?

I did the math and realized I wanted eight more cards. I knew that my biggest hurdle is in people adopting change. So I didn’t want to introduce any unique cards, like new face cards. 11s and 12s just seemed logical to me. If I changed the face cards or in any other way messed with the logic of the traditional deck, I was probably going to face huge opposition no matter how great the game.

I think the changes I made are the best method by which to produce the precise mathematical results for hold’em poker while preserving the logic. I faced a great deal of consternation about whether to unsuit the 2s and 3s, but wanted to consolidate all of the changes to the same place in the deck. As far as unsuiting cards to begin with, I needed to for two reasons. The overall idea of my game is to add more ’slugs’ to the deck that do not improve drawing hands. This forces players to be more considerate when drawing, since some situations that are profitable for drawing in THE are not in CHE.

If I did not compensate for suit, it would be easier to get a flush than a straight and there would be no comparable disincentive applied to flush draws. I knew I could not unsuit the 12s, because there had to be the ability to get a Royal Flush. (12-A in my game.) A great deal of thought went into every detail of my game. In the end, the nuance created by having the unsuited cards where they are in the deck creates some really cool challenges. Understanding the 10-12 in the deck and the ramifications the changes can give a skilled player an edge even amongst skilled players. There’s a whole new set of variables upon which the great minds can find advantages and that’s really the heart of what poker is about, at least for me.

(4) How do you feel about competing against Texas Hold’Em?

That’s an interesting question. I do look at my game as the one direct competitor to Texas Hold’em and I feel the industry has evolved to the point where players want more options to mix things up. I look at my efforts to grow the game as a marathon and not a sprint.

I do not intend to replace Texas Hold’em. That’s just not realistic. I just want to find my niche. If I can have a tab beside Omaha and Stud on online sites, I’m quite happy. I do think the industry needs a game like mine. With such low barriers to entry - there were 100+ new online sites in 2005 - the online giants are bleeding margins because they do not have a claim on the product they are offering. If a site or sites license my game, they retain all of the players. Because the game can’t be offered anywhere, it removes the incentive for players to jump from site to site chasing promotions.

Though sites will have to pay a licensing fee, the margins they make on my game will be higher than Texas Hold’em, and are insured in the long-term. So there is quite a bit of incentive for those who want to grow the game. I want to focus on Asia and other emerging markets where I can get a foothold before the roots of Texas Hold’em grow as deep as they have in the US and Europe, but if in ten years I have 10% of the market for poker, I am more than content. I think there are places where Texas Hold’em is a great game, at high limits and in small fields of skilled players. I think there are places where my game is better. I want people to think of my game merely as an alternative.

Part 2 of this interview will run in the next day or two.

Technorati Tags: poker, holdem, california holdem

Related Posts

« Previous Post | Next Post »

1 Comment to “A Chat With Chad, Creator of California Hold’em - Pt 1”

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.