How bad are the fish?

[scotty34]

This may or may not yield some interesting discussion, but I have a question that has perked my mind a bit. Say hypothetically, Texas Hold'em (or any form of poker for that matter) was played with all hole cards face up for everyone to see. Would there still be consistent winners and losers in this game? Would the only losers be the players that don't understand pot odds and equity, or would a very advanced player still have an edge over a mediocre player that does understand the basic principles?

[cookie]

The game would be boring, therefore no fishies to play it...

[Orpheus]

Boring? Maybe not. Fishies (and others) find the slow turn of the board cards fascinating when two players are all-in. It's all in the build-up and real-time analysis. IMHO, most professional sports would be dry as dishwater in the long run to the general public if it weren't for the commentary -- which is why sports are never broadcast without it.

You might think it'd be hard to maintain the excitement of a face-up game in the long run, but in televised poker, all cards are face up to the viewer, yet there is substantial public interest (partly due to commentary). In most popular casino games like blackjack or craps or even slots and roulette, there are no "hidden cards", but their popularity seriously eclipses poker.

Though 2+2 might not be the place to see the popularity of casino games objectively, poker was a latecomer to gaming, and an outskirts "border" game that filled in where there wasn't an infrastructure for true casino games. Despite what you might see in the westerns, casino games were the staple in the large saloons, while poker ruled in he small ones.

I think a face-up game could garner substantial popularity, if properly promoted (not that I expect that to happen any time soon) I'm not even sure that the psychological makeup of most poker fish is SO terribly distinct from casino fish, though they may fancy that it is.

How many self-styled "sports fans" haven't actually bothered to play a sport in years, decades or ever? There's a strong spectator streak in he public, and it fuels most of our multibillion dollar entertainment industries. Arguably, the single factor keeping gambling from being much bigger than, say, Major League Baseball is that it isn't "spectator enough" -- the players actually have something at stake; they have to participate, make choices and suffer the consequences. TV poker will be more popular than online poker for a long time because it makes thing more passive.

And, partly, because the cards are face up. Most people prefer to minimize uncertainly

It occurs to me that if you offered an online option to "play along' with a WSOP player or game, making your own bets/folds, you might make a mint. Of course, I have no idea how that would work (e.g. how would they determine that Ivey would fold at the 40Kchip raise that you wager from your barcalounger, if he called the 20K raise at the table?)

Sure, it wouldn't be poker. Most games aren't. Vegas was built on gaming, but poker --even the WSOP-- is just a blip on its radar. I wouldn't be surprised if more people put more money into video poker than the real thing. Face-up poker could stand a real chance withthe right venue and promotion.

I'm not saying it'd stand the test of time. That's unknowable. The ancient Romans played games like rota (which survives only as a rarely played childrens game) or a Go variant akin to today's "Pente". Both are dead games in the West, but they were played longer than almost any of today's games. Go remains as popular as it has been for millenia.

[XXXNoahXXX]

I think there might be a slight edge knowing when to get away from draws and whatnot, but it would be very boring. There would be so much folding, it would almost never make the river unless someone had a flush draw against something less. There'd be no such thing as slowplaying or trapping. The game would become a lot less skilled and although the skilled players would have an edge and good concept of pot odds and preflop hands that are good, the edge would be slim and the edge between the 2+2 newbie and "carpal tunnel" would be gone.

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
The game would be boring, therefore no fishies to play it...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably true.

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, most professional sports would be dry as dishwater in the long run to the general public if it weren't for the commentary -- which is why sports are never broadcast without it.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a joke right? I would pay a non trivial amount of money to have all of my favorite teams games broadcast with crowd noise and without announcers. In a related note, I would very much like to contribute to a fund to have Tim McCarver's tongue nailed to Joe Morgan's forehead.

But on to the original question.

At the risk of stating the obvious, you eliminate the incomplete information part of the game. Bluffing would disappear. I imagine almost every hand would end after the flop if the players were remotely competent.

You know what, the higher level games would probably dry up and the low limit games would flourish if the non rational thinkers stuck around.

[pzhon]

How is this supposed to be related to the title question? You ask how bad the fish are, and then talk about a completely different game. Well, suppose someone cold-calls too much preflop. How well do they play hockey?

There are two-player games of skill and chance with no hidden information that are still far from solved. Indeed, chess has no objective chance, and it is still far from solved. That there are more than 2 players in face-up poker means strategy could be extremely complicated. What do you do with AJo in early position if it is the best nonpair, but there are some good multiway hands behind you, and one pocket pair? You have to consider not just which hand is best, but how your opponents will play after you. So, face-up poker is still complicated.

[bobman0330]

I believe face-up poker would be a reasonably easy game to solve because hot-and-cold equity is such a good metric for the strength of various positions. (more so since implied odds drop out). The preflop scenario you describe could be worked out pretty simply with backward induction. (PP will call, raise or fold depending on his hot and cold equity for the number of people in the pot and their hands. the player before him to act will act knowing what PP's action will be, etc.)

One of the reasons chess is so hard is because comparing the value of two reasonable moves in a non-endgame position is outlandishly complex. But computer backgammon programs, which are quite successful, work by determining winning percentages for each possible move, then choosing the highest one. when you take implied odds out of EV calculations, equity is an excellent metric, and would lead to an easy solution.

[shermn27]

Count me in on the Joe Morgan/Tim McCarver thing. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe face-up poker would be a reasonably easy game to solve because hot-and-cold equity is such a good metric for the strength of various positions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if there were no betting postflop, it would still be a complicated game. It is possible for a hand to be a favorite heads-up against each opponent, and an underdog in a multiway pot, and vice-versa.

Even though you don't get paid off after you hit a monster, you still have to take into account the betting and folding on later rounds to act correctly now.

To illustrate this, suppose extra money is added to the pot preflop so that it will always be right to call with 4 outs, but not with 2 outs. The hands are 22 versus AKo. 22 is a slight hot-and-cold favorite. However, AK should be the one raising, since AK will rarely fold with significant winning chances, but 22 will often have to fold with 2 outs. This means AK will win the pot more than 50% of the time, and 22 gets back less than $1 for every dollar 22 puts in preflop.

Try to analyze a few examples, rather than just guess that it would be easy to anlayze them, and I think you'll find it quite nontrivial.

[bobman0330]

Don't get testy...

These situations make it a bit more complicated, but they're still fairly easily quantifiable and predictable. x% of the time 22 will be unable to continue, so it's actual winning percentage in an open hand against AK is y%. With a computer handy, i believe it would be a straightforward exercise to solve any given hand combination.

The questions about who will be in and who won't are not an issue, even without a computer, because every player can predict who will enter and who will not enter the pot, assuming everyone is rational. More details later, if you want them.