Would this rule change to poker make it not count as gambling

[tarath]

Basically the game would be identical to poker except that when players went all-in, rather than dealing out the rest of the hand and determining a winner, each player would recieve the percentage of the pot that they would win in the long run.

ie. Any all-in would be a fixed payout based on the expected value of that players hand rather than a random event based on drawing the remaining cards from the deck.

Example:

AK and 33 go all in preflop, no cards are dealt, AK gets 48% of the pot 33 gets 52%.

This would have no strategic impact on the gameplay of poker assume players are attempting to maximize their EV so it would preserve all the strategy that makes poker a great game, however it would be very hard to define this game as gambling. Payoffs never depend directly on a random event in this setting.

[jkpoker]

This would be a push fest and donks wouldnt play it.

Also i dont like limit but it would get rid of it.

[rminusq]

Fixed your subject.

As soon as I saw the subject, I figured that's what you were suggesting. Reasons why it wouldn't work...
Side pots: Are they allowed to exist?
Chip size: If we go in for $5 each with $1 chips, and you're a 54-46 favorite, do we each get 5 back?
Tournaments: It's now essentially impossible to knock someone out.
Live play: Besides the fact that most people wouldn't necessarily trust a dealer with figuring out the chop, that'd certainly slow the play down.

All that and it'd make poker not exciting enough for bad people to come in and lose money.

[PBJaxx]

People have talked about a game like this forever.

It would completely ruin the game, and it would not be poker.

[4_2_it]

I heard the chips used in this game would be called Sklansky bucks.

[RoundGuy]

What happens if no one goes all-in?

[Quanah Parker]

Sounds like the most exciting card game since "War".

[Jack Bando]

I'm sorry, but never playing cards again anywhere>this new poker.

[Yoshi63]

Yeah I 'came up' with this idea the other night. Obviously it would be a horrible game to play for many reasons. However, I thought a game like this could prove useful as a training/practice technique.

[jsthomas64]

To answer your actual question I don't think this would take "gambling" out of poker. If nobody goes all-in and a donk calls down to the river and hits a one-outer you haven't changed anything about the game.

As another poster noted, this question is addresses one facet of no-limit hold 'em - not the structure of the game itself. You might not realize it, but there are a lot of other types of poker out there. Pot Limit Omaha being a very popular one!

Oh yeah - this might have slipped by you - POKER IS GAMBLING!!! It has a higher level of skill, but it is without a doubt gambling.

[jws43yale]

Funny enough there was a really big game at Yale that died out my Freshman year. Supposedly the hardcore regular players would oftentimes play out all-ins three times to reduce variance.

[NickMPK]

So do you think that limit poker is not gambling (because people are almost never all-in)?

There are many types of luck in poker, and all-in coin flips and bad beats are just one small subset.