Luck-free Poker

[Zetack]

There are some niggling problems...how do you handle a misdeal? Also, almost inevitably if the tables are going on in the same room you'd get reads or actual results from what happens at the other tables. The guy in my seat starts walking away on table 2? Damn my aces will get cracked if I keep playing this hand...

And unless its online the integrety of the arranged deck would seem to be a major problem.



--Zetack

[jcmack13]

I just logged into 2+2 with the intention of posting something very similar to this, how eerie...

Anyways, I've been running poorly for a little bit, but I just shrugged and thought "Even Sklansky would be down if he were playing the cards I'm getting." but then i wondered, would he? So i thought of something similar to the ideas mentioned in this thread.

However, instead of a tournament, I envisioned a computer simulation involving a fixed number of hands, say one thousand or ten thousand. Every player would get the same ten thousand hands and play them against virtual opponents. The idea is since the cards and opponents are the same, this would finally give an objective rating of someone's playing style. However, there are some logistical problems, i.e. programming the actions for the 9 opponents on each street of each hand (if the player checks fourth street in hand 3,247, then bot A should bet and bot B should raise, but if the player bets fourth street, A should raise and B should fold, etc.). one solution is simply an advanced algorithm for each bot, maybe two or three highly complex algorithms to represent two or three playing styles, say bot A, C and F are LAGs, B and D are weak-tight, etc.

Another problem with the computer simulation is a key component of poker, which is getting opponents to react to your own style of play. the virtual opponenents would need to react to the player's playing style just as live opponents would, say, realize the player is weak-tight and adjust their actions accordingly. Once again, something human poker players do naturally but might be quite difficult for a computer algorithm to emulate.

At any rate, I think it would be very interesting to see how different players play the same stretch of ten thousand hands, and what their results are. But I realized the fundamental flaw with this approach, which is that the results are STILL not a clear indication of the merits of a playing style because of the aforementioned terrible call that spikes a lucky card and gives a poor player an inflated score.

Nevertheless, I think it would be a fun, video-game like experience to have me and my friends sit down and play the same ten thousand hands and see how we did relative to each other.

P.S. very interesting point about it being correct to lay down AA and hope it gets cracked. almost Zen-like.

[Rotating Rabbit]

I didnt know it was a bridge thing, thats interesting, suggests it could work elsewhere.

I agree its got problems, the luck of the table-draw etc, but I think the luck factor is less, and the variance on final positions would be reduced.

But most of all, I think it would be really exciting to see how the same awesome players played the same hand, sure one of them could have a moron for an opponent, but it would be make excellent tv. Just imagine if there was this hand where a huge laydown or huge call is required, and we get to see what the best players in the world do, all in exactly the same situation.

[OrangeKing]

I think you actually can do those sorts of things in Turbo Texas Hold 'em - at least, that's what the demo gave me the impression of.

[Kevin K.]

The only way to allow everyone to play exactly the same game is to set it up as a computer sim and have everyone play the same set of hands against the same AI. Having everyone play the same cards against different sets of opponents changes everything.

Even then, you don't remove the luck factor. Player A can make all the "right" plays and still get sucked out on while Player B is a donk who catches runner runner in a big pot at some point. It's just not possible.

[wizard111]

This was once tried with a site called Skilled Poker. That site went under. One problem was that people would talk on the phone. Also like you said the draw of who was sitting at your table made a big diffence.

[gasgod]

As others have pointed out, if people bust out, it alters the comparison with other tables. The solution is simple: Every player starts out each hand with a full complement of chips, and nobody ever busts out.

Players would advance not by dominating their table, but rather by dominating their seat. The final table would get the best seat 1 player, the best seat 2 player, etc.

Some object to the fact that there would still be aome luck in the game. This is also true in duplicate bridge. A moron can play for a singleton king with three cards missing, and get a "top", even though his play was stupid. Still, the winners list always has the same names on it. The best partnership (or team) doesn't always win, but they do it fairly often.

Would it be poker? No. Duplicate bridge isn't the same game as rubber bridge either. But I think duplicate poker could be interesting.

GG

[Cyrus]

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Next item up in the agenda:

Secret signals to your poker team mate at the table.

[Morbo]

I think I'm missing something here. Why would this reduce luck? It is sure an interesting concept but it has nothing to do with reducing luck. I mean, the deck is still shuffled randomly, even though it is the same shuffle on every table, right? So why would I not be unlucky if my AA get outdrawn by J8, as opposed to a regular tournament?

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm missing something here. Why would this reduce luck? It is sure an interesting concept but it has nothing to do with reducing luck. I mean, the deck is still shuffled randomly, even though it is the same shuffle on every table, right? So why would I not be unlucky if my AA get outdrawn by J8, as opposed to a regular tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

Duplicate poker would reduce luck, but not eliminate it. For the sake of argument, let's suppose you went allin with AA. In the example you give, you would be very unlucky to lose to J8, because very few people with J8 would call at the other tables. But suppose you lost to KK? This wouldn't be unlucky because KK would call at just about every table.

GG