Hypothetical question that will blow your mind.

[gobboboy]

I was musing the other day about what would be better for one's poker game:
1) Being able to know the final board before you have to put in a single chip
or
2) Being able to see everyone's cards at the table.
At first your answer may seem obvious, but here are a few points to get the ball rolling:

Pros of #1: Being able to see the final board means you never have to play hands that miss. Your Win$@SD rate will be probably around 90%, as you only have to play your junk hands that hit boats, straights, flushes, or able to play your monsters to a set or other ridiculous edges. You'll lose very little money and nearly every hand you play will be profitable.

Cons: You will probably be sitting around a lot. Statistics say that you only hit the flop around a third of the time, and with only 2 cards after that the chances of you hitting are slim to nil. Continuation bets often take down money without even hitting, and your mediocre hands (to you in this stage, this may mean a simple top pair) that you fold preflop that would've won will not be played. This is where the majority of your money is made, afterall.

Pros of #2: Suddenly reads, tells, and everything else about actually seeing people is gone. You know what people have. You know how likely it is to hit a flush, straight, and any other draw simply because you have all the information on hands. Not only that, but you would be able to play their hands. They make a huge bluff? You can crush them. Your decisions will take a microsecond. You'll be able to steal hands with garbage because your opponent has slightly better garbage. If your opponents hit hands, you can fold immediately.
Cons: You have to commit chips just like anyone else and see a flop that may not be favorable. Just because your hand is better preflop does not mean you can force some of these fish off hands that simply beat you. We've all experienced that over time. Suckouts will still happen, you just know when it is possible to cut your losses. If you're already good at reading hands, this ability is nigh-useless.

I think that'll get some conversation going on the subject. As for me, which would I prefer? I have absolutely no idea. But I'd like to hear ideas on the subject.

Here's another little tack-on: Does your opinion change when it is either limit or no-limit? Why?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Votes not yet accepted!?

[gobboboy]

The poll must be screwed up. Just post your opinion and your thoughts until it works.

[GMan42]

This sounds like the "if you could see everyone's hole cards, would you be guaranteed to win the WSOP" thread (to which some people inexplicably responded no).

Either one of the above would earn me a mansion and sports car within a few months, but I think I'd rather see the board in limit and the opponents' cards in NL. In NL I'd know when to put in a big bet to squash a draw when I was leading on the flop/turn, and if ahead after the river, I'd know about how big of a bet my opponent will be willing to call, based on the strength of his hand.

[mudbuddha]

personally, i would rather play knowing the opponents cards.. i think the most important fact is that you will see the board eventually anyways.
if you know the final board, it is pretty useless unless you play nuts you or very, very good hands.. and still you cannot be sure you are ahead, or putting the right odds on the opponents.. if that makes any sense

[bobbyi]

If I could know the board cards ahead of time, the disadvantage would be that I would have to play very tight? Does that mean tighter than I play now? Are you tell me that with this fantastically awesome superpower, I would somehow be able to play fewer hands profitably than I can now?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

The final board is 100 times more valuable, especially once people notice you winning every hand.

[benkahuna]

Clearly seeing opponents cards. You'd know when your opponents were drawing dead on the turn. You'd know exactly how your opponents were playing. You'd know where you were in every single hand at all times. That versus knowing you'll have the nuts in a miniscule number of cases and some strong hands when a better hand could beat you.

I see absolutely no contest here.

[XChamp]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly seeing opponents cards.

I see absolutely no contest here.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because you're right. It is no contest. Think of the betting on the river. Our hardest decisions sometimes come there, and yet one of these abilities does not help us decide AT ALL.

[KneeCo]

I would want to know what everyone was holding, to me it's an obvious choice. The reason is simple, the board will expose itself to everyone, ability or not, and by the river, if I knew everyone's hole cards, I would be in a position of complete information (which of course is HUGE), whereas I would never get to be in such a position if I only knew the board ahead of time (which isn't to say that this wouldn't be great, like a previous poster said, either 'ability' is an absolute goldmine).

Also, a note to the OP. In your description of the pros/cons, I think you are simply considering things from too much of a PF point of view (perhaps because you are a big MTTer). For instance:
[ QUOTE ]
Just because your hand is better preflop does not mean you can force some of these fish off hands that simply beat you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, for one, would be playing post-flop poker as much as possible if I always knew exactly what everyone held. Not to say I would be unwilling to play PF, far from it, but you see what I'm saying (hopefully).