Taking the luck out of poker!

[texasrattlers]

Like most on this forum, I believe I make better decisions than the majority of my opponents. And it sometimes feels unfair when my better hand gets beat by a cruel river card. So, I have been toying with the idea of creating a "more fair" type of poker, one that tilts the odds further towards skill than luck.

For example, the pot would be divvied up among everyone who sees the river in some proportion relating to their chances of winning (EV) pre-flop, flop, turn and river. Fish would still be rewarded, just not as much.

Any thoughts? Am I just a sore loser? [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[Burno]

You think fish want to play that game?

[Phill S]

worst. idea. ever.

fish are content to play junk cos it can win. as stated they wouldnt play this as:

a, they probably wouldnt understand how it works (im a little confused myself)
b, they dont understand EV. what is EV?

i tell you what, in order to find out how to play this game lets google 'poker EV' and see what we learnt.

and so a bad player becomes above average.

i dont mind people wanting to learn how to play poker as a science as much as an art, however to create a game which forces them too cannot be a good idea long term.

Phill
ps, who do you think would host this game where it would ge thte numbers in to 'enjoy' its benefits?

[Stoneii]

No, definitely not, you want to penalise weaker players for being weak?. Their (our, my!!) penalty is to feed your bankroll over the long run, if my own bankroll as a fish is to dry up quicker, so does my enjoyment, so does my involvement in poker, and eventually your own roll struggles to expand at the same healthy rate!!

imo

stoneii

[AleoMagus]

Ever wonder why NL 5 card stud is so unpopular?

How does Party manage to get 60,000 players a night again?
Oh that's righ, because sometimes fish win.

I'll tell you, I used to be a pool player and an awfully competitive one too. I played snooker and nine ball mostly and despite the fact that I might have been a better nine ball player than I am a poker player, I never made nearly as much money playing that game.

In fact, there are probably hundreds of online poker players today who make more in a year than the BEST 9-ball player in the world.

The reason for this was that as soon as I got in a game with another player, I either had to hit the brakes and hustle, or he knew very quickly that he was outmatched. I might get one set in and make a quick buck, but that was the end of that. If you don't hide your speed, you are forced to always play players better than yourself. Even the tournament structure in pool forces a player to constantly be playing above his head.

In poker, I can play my absolutely very best game, and 90% of the players at the table don't have the slightest clue that they are at a disadvantage. They might even figure out one day that they are losing money, but I could keep playing them day after day, and for many, it would be hard to tell I was not just getting lucky.

This is the ideal situation. A game where anyone can win with just a small twist of fate.

If the chess players and pool players of the world suddenly wanted to increase their earning power tenfold tommorrow, they would make matches a best of 1, not a best of 7 or 9. They would augment their games to allow for chance to take hold. The player base would increase and guys like me might even pay big entry fees, cause even I can beat the best pool player in the world if I only need to do it in 1 game.

Just some thoughts

Regards
Brad S

[captZEEbo1]

that's a good way to get fish to stop playing =P

[jcm4ccc]

What a great idea. Let's take the luck out of some other games. Here's a few suggestions:

Monopoly: Rental costs will be based on the likelihood that you will land on the property and not whether you actually land on the property or not. For example, the chances of rolling a 2 are 1/36, or 2.8%. So if you are 2 away from landing on Boardwalk with a hotel, then you will pay $1500 X 2.8%, or $42. That way, if you are unlucky enough to roll a 2, it won't cost you unfairly.

Trivial Pursuit: The winner will be based on a percentage of questions answered multiplied by the average difficulty of the questions (the difficulty of the questions to be determined by administering the questions to a random sampling of the American population). That way, you are not penalized for having to answer harder questions than your opponents.

Candy Land: All of the squares are red-colored, all of the cards have red squares on them, and the all of the sides of the dice have a 1 on them. Each person gets an equal number of rolls of the dice. That way, everybody ties everybody else every time.

[texasrattlers]

OK the other responses about scarying the fish away make some sense. But this post is just assinine:

[ QUOTE ]
Monopoly: Rental costs will be based on the likelihood that you will land on the property and not whether you actually land on the property or not. For example, the chances of rolling a 2 are 1/36, or 2.8%. So if you are 2 away from landing on Boardwalk with a hotel, then you will pay $1500 X 2.8%, or $42. That way, if you are unlucky enough to roll a 2, it won't cost you unfairly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am looking for a way to skew the skill/luck factor of poker more towards skill. How much more skill is involoved in poker than Monopoly?

[ QUOTE ]
Trivial Pursuit: The winner will be based on a percentage of questions answered multiplied by the average difficulty of the questions (the difficulty of the questions to be determined by administering the questions to a random sampling of the American population). That way, you are not penalized for having to answer harder questions than your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a bad idea!

[ QUOTE ]
Candy Land: All of the squares are red-colored, all of the cards have red squares on them, and the all of the sides of the dice have a 1 on them. Each person gets an equal number of rolls of the dice. That way, everybody ties everybody else every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you wasting 2+2 bandwidth with comments like this?

[joeboe2001]

TR, you ARE a sore loser!!!

You remind of Minh the Magnificent at this year's WSOP--did you see the tape of him bitching and moaning after he got knocked out by some internet qualifier who "didn't play right?"

These days a modicum of skill should get you a long way in online holdem--you should enjoy the many times you win and forget about the bad beats, which should (IF you are playing skillfully!) be few and far between. If you are suffering too many bad beats, its time to take a look at your own game and quit talking down the many friendly fish who are just out there trying to have a good time!!!

If you want a reliable source of funds, get a job! (LOL)

[morgan180]

One reason not to do this: the rake

If everyone played even poker and won about the same percentage of time then everyone would lose on average to the house via the rake.

By taking the chance out of poker you push this equilibrium much more towards the above unfavorable distribution. Yes the fish would lose more initially, but you would make the game easier to learn with less variance. It would become like chess or bridge - and I don't see much of either on TV or on 60,000 computer screens at once.