Duplicate poker

[Tilt]

Has anyone ever heard of a duplicate poker game, like they do with duplicate bridge?

You would have two tables (or more) in separate rooms. Each seat would get "dealt" the same cards as the other tables had. The same board would get dealt out per hand as in the other room. The objective is to beat the player in the same seat as you in another room, who had the same cards to play.

That would take the luck out of it. Your bad beats are the bad beats your actual opponent took. It would be all about your relative ability to outplay your table.

[eviljeff]

never heard of anything like this, but it's an interesting idea.

trying this live could prove problematic with regard to the integrity of the game (and confidence in the integrity).

when i first read this, i thought holy [censored], this would be perfect...then i came to the obvious conclusion that the quality of the players at the two tables could easily affect the outcome.

however, this concept is still freaking amazing

[spaminator101]

never heard of it but would love to try it

[pudley4]

skillpoker.com tried this a few years ago. The site is gone now.

[Ghazban]

I don't think it can work. Poker hands aren't played in a vacuum and what happened on one hand has a large effect on what happens on others. If somebody on one table makes a huge bluff and gets picked off, players at that table will play differently against him than if the analagous player at the other table made a huge bluff that wasn't called. If this were a no-limit game, the changing chip stacks would also make the game play very differently even if the cards ended up in the same seats.

[Tilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker hands aren't played in a vacuum and what happened on one hand has a large effect on what happens on others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats true, but its true in bridge, too. Against one set of aggressive bidders the cards may be played completely differently. But its certainly a more controlled test of skill.

What would be most interesting about this would be the rehashing of it. Comparing and contrasting how players atacked certain hands would be fascinating. I think it would be a great idea for a poker show, if you had two groups of elite tournament players on camera and bounced back and forth between them to see how hands played out differently at different tables.

[Ghazban]

You may be right; I don't play bridge so I can't comment intelligently about the similarities of the situation. I just think that the dynamic of a table after a series of poker hands could be so different depending on who was playing those hands that each succeeding hand is less comparable to the exact same cards being dealt at another table.

You also run into the problem (if its a tournament) of people being knocked out on one table but not on the other. Do you deal hands to the empty seats to preserve the deck ordering? Also, if its down to 3 on one table and 8 at the other, there's really nothing useful to compare between the two situations any more.

Anyway, I do think certain standardized comparisons (if the stack sizes were reset after each hand) of individual hands could be quite interesting but the overall flow of many sequential hands would be so different on two tables that it'd be hard to run as an event/show/tournament/whatever. Essentially, this would just be doing what we do on these boards all the time-- giving a description of our cards and table conditions and seeing what sorts of different lines people would take.

[ohnonotthat]

We soon realized that for the results to have any real significance we would have to play many thousands of hands and, well, if we wanted to play many thousands of hands - we'd just do it.

In theory a great idea and maybe online with the greater number of hands played in a given time period it might be more feasible.

Still, it seems that all the automatic plays are by now - due in part to this forum - just that . . . automatic.

Those plays that are truly worthy of discussion are by definition the ones that fuel endless debate with the "correct" choice being dependent on so many factors I doubt a duplicate format would help very much.

Example:

Moments ago I had the exact same hand at two different tables - same stakes, same site, and five of the same opponents at both tables; that's close to as duplicated as possible in real life. ( 3-6 at Party for those interested )

Four limpers to me; I call with A-T/spades.

- Already there's room for discussion; many would raise here and they could hardly be taken to task for doing so.

Flop: T 5 2 with 2 spades at table 1,

T 6 4 with 2 spades at table 2.

Both turn cards were Aces that did not put a 2nd flush draw on board.

On the flop I was bet into at both tables from my near right.

I raised the flop at one and called - in order to raise the turn - at the other.

In the opinion of those reading this, was there a clear-cut "better" play ?

There's even a third option.

I could have waited for the river to raise at either or both; I don't like this play but it could be correct from time to time.

>

Duplicate poker is a great idea in theory but the degree of control required on the environment of the game renders it impractical and of little value - IMHO.

>

Great thought tho - nice job !

[nef]

There was a big discussion on this on RGP maybe 5 years ago with maybe Weideman? and some others. Try searching RGP.

[nef]

[ QUOTE ]
Four limpers to me; I call with A-T/spades.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to hijack but raising here should be one of those automatic plays you mentioned earlier in your post. Sklansky did an analysis of this several years back, and Ed Miller analysed a similar situation on ITH forums a short while ago. It was determined that calling here is a worse mistake than something like raising 72o UTG or some similar obviously poor play.