Re: Luck-free Poker
OK. I'm not sure you've understood my post.
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is PERFECT already. Poor play is rewarded EXACTLY often enough to keep the donaters donating and the sharks sharking.
[/ QUOTE ]
No difference! Its the same game, that hasnt changed! If someone plays poor but gets lucky, theyll stay in and be doing well! No different.
[ QUOTE ]
What tournament pro needs to get into a pissing contest over who gets the most value with marginal hands? There's already a game that measures this ability; it's called "limit poker."
[/ QUOTE ]
Most likely the two that come bottom of the group played one or two hands very poorly for a lot of chips, e.g. called the nut flush on the river when the other 8 folded. It wont come down to marginal differences in most cases.
[ QUOTE ]
In your "tournament" you're assuming that that the texture of every table is exactly the same and that every player who plays poorly plays poorly in exactly the same way.
[/ QUOTE ]
No I'm not. I actually said this in my post.
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you want to be rewarded for entering pots as a favorite without getting caught up in the emotion of losing to a suckout.
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutaly not. It makes the game more competitive, thats the motivation.
[ QUOTE ]
Grow up. Play chess if the dark side of probability scares you.
[/ QUOTE ]
No comment.
|