Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

This topic was brought up a while back on the Sklansky forum but didn't get much discussion... I would really be interesting in hearing what more people have to say about this.

Why couldn't poker be played so that whenever all remaining players in a hand are all-in, the pot would get split according to the showdown probabilities, without even dealing the rest of the cards?

Obviously this wouldn't work in tournaments since no one would ever get eliminated, but for no-limit and pot-limit cash games I would love to play in a game like that. Correct plays would be rewarded and terrible plays would be punished much more consistently. There is nothing in poker I hate more than playing a smart game all night long and end up losing repeatedly to players chasing gutshots or rivering two pair.

Some of the comments in the other thread include "this would ruin poker forever"... how? I don't see how this affects the game very much at all. The gameplay is the same, the EV of each play is the same... the only difference is that variance is less of a factor and the "long run" comes much sooner.

Another person said "The game would basically come down to getting dealt a certain percentage of hands, and pushing pre-flop with them only. This wouldn't even be poker." Completely incorrect... there is no reason the game would change at all. Why would you start folding 95% of your hands, and pushing with the other 5% just to pick up the blinds? Makes no sense.

There are only a couple of real potential changes I see... first would be that the terrible players would figure out that shoving on the flop with a straight or flush draw is unprofitable. Second would be that due to the lack of bad beats, tilting would happen less often.

I personally play rarely right now, due to the fact that a string of bad beats makes me feel like I never want to play poker anymore. I doubt I'm the only one who would come back if there was a table like this around.

So what do you all think about this? Would you want to play at a table where all-in hands are decided by the odds when the play was made?

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are only a couple of real potential changes I see... first would be that the terrible players would figure out that shoving on the flop with a straight or flush draw is unprofitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Players no longer doing that is horrible for poker ldo. Sometimes shoving there is profitable anyway. You most likely don't like poker b/c you're horrible at it.

grow a sac and take your beats like a man.

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
variance is less of a factor and the "long run" comes much sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

fish only play cause they have a chance to get lucky and win big any one night

if you take away variance and make them win according to the strengths of their hands, they wouldn't want to play

fish play cause they can sometimes score big with bad play

it's like you're not going to play chess if you lose constantly, but if you randomly win every 3 or 4th time you'll play more even if your up against competition you can't beat

same reason fish play poker

in short, you have a horrible idea

[ QUOTE ]
terrible players would figure out that shoving on the flop with a straight or flush draw is unprofitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

plz tell me why terrible players figuring out that making -EV plays is not profitable would any way shape or form help you? how on earth would this help?

bad players would now start to play well? wow... geez... that's exactly what i want... lol... NOT!

[ QUOTE ]
Second would be that due to the lack of bad beats, tilting would happen less often.

[/ QUOTE ]

once again... you profit when your opponents tilt

if you want to play against better players, move up to where they respect your raises LDO

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

wtf man, alot of people play poker to gamble. And when people are stuck they can start getting it in with sub par hands to try and get even.

reducing the luck would eliminate both these things. just deal with the variance

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

I think you are on to something sir. I can see the future of poker now:

Poker Stars - No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $10/$20 Blinds - 4 Players - (LegoPoker HH Converter)

SB posts a blind of $10
BB posts a blind of $20

SB is dealt face-up A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
BB is dealt face-up 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
UTG is dealt face-up A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
BTN is dealt face-up 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

$30 pot to be split by equity:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 34.877% 33.36% 01.52% 362301 16466.00 { AsQs }
Hand 1: 22.354% 22.28% 00.07% 241984 778.00 { 7h4c }
Hand 2: 12.092% 10.58% 01.52% 114855 16466.00 { Ad2s }
Hand 3: 30.677% 30.61% 00.07% 332380 778.00 { Jh9s }

Pay the rake, chop it up, move the button, next hand, weeeeeeee...

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

wtf. im lost with this post.

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
wtf. im lost with this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe OP is Sklansky's gimmick account

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

Yes great idea. But why limit this to only poker. Lets introduce this to roulette to!Imagine all the players running to the casino to play fair roulette. This could be great fun.

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

...so you don't like gambling. What possessed you to start playing poker?

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes great idea. But why limit this to only poker. Lets introduce this to roulette to!Imagine all the players running to the casino to play fair roulette. This could be great fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

i mean why even have the roulette table, why don't you just give the casino a $20 every five minutes, and they can bring you a Keystone every 1/2 hour and chicken wings every hour?

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

i always said this to myself. if we get all in we split it based on equity, but i mean come on. thats why its gambling.

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wtf. im lost with this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe OP is Sklansky's gimmick account

[/ QUOTE ]


lol

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

Dude..
Sounds like you're getting a sick run of card/tilt/bad play and are fed up with the swings of NL.
I think this idea is horrible to be honest but in a constructive way.. why not try playing limit games?
This = less variance for ya [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

OP,

If you can't figure out how awful your "vision" is for professional players, let alone the game as a whole, then you should stop playing the game seriously. That is, if you even did to begin with. This isn't a cheap flame, I'm just being honest.

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

OK, serious response.

OP,

[ QUOTE ]
I personally play rarely right now, due to the fact that a string of bad beats makes me feel like I never want to play poker anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your comment here is a very common sentiment amongst beginning players. Alot of people here on this forum had thoughts like this cross there mind early in their careers. But they overcame it.

You get the money in good and lose...it's part of the game. You're rarely a 100-0 favorite. When you're a 70-30 favorite, well you lose those 30% of the time. Play enough, and they can stack up. You can't just forget the times your aces held up against kings and remember the two times jacks (or 7T) sucked out on your aces.

Basically what it boils down too is that you want people to put their money in as an underdog. And you take the beats when they come and move on. Long run, all the percentages even out to their true numbers. You may lose AA to KK all-in preflop 4 times in a row. But, you'll win that pot 80% of the time over the course of your career.

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

Well put AJ. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the comments in the other thread include "this would ruin poker forever"... how? I don't see how this affects the game very much at all. The gameplay is the same, the EV of each play is the same... the only difference is that variance is less of a factor and the "long run" comes much sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was answered in the other freaking thread.
If this was the case, then the fish who come to gable purely on luck would have no reason to play any more. Jesus - learn to read.

[ QUOTE ]
tilting would happen less often

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol, and this is a good thing how?

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are on to something sir. I can see the future of poker now:

SB is dealt face-up A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
BB is dealt face-up 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
UTG is dealt face-up A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
BTN is dealt face-up 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

$30 pot to be split by equity:

Pay the rake, chop it up, move the button, next hand, weeeeeeee...

[/ QUOTE ]

And these people would be going all in preflop with every single hand, why?

Re: Reducing the amount of luck in poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some of the comments in the other thread include "this would ruin poker forever"... how? I don't see how this affects the game very much at all. The gameplay is the same, the EV of each play is the same... the only difference is that variance is less of a factor and the "long run" comes much sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was answered in the other freaking thread.
If this was the case, then the fish who come to gable purely on luck would have no reason to play any more. Jesus - learn to read.


[/ QUOTE ]

I meant to address this in the first post but evidently it slipped my mind while I was typing it. I might be wrong, but I don't think many people would stop playing. You can still gamble, bluff, and play a high risk game. Remember, it would only affect hands in which people go all in. So the only thing you can't do is repeatedly go all in with flush draws and expect to make a profit... well guess what, you can't do that now anyway.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
tilting would happen less often

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol, and this is a good thing how?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see your point, but at the same time I don't love to prey upon tilting players as much as other people. I enjoy poker when it's a competitive game of skill... and I enjoy it less when lucky cards are determining all the huge pots, or when people get desperate/emotional and stop playing skillfully.

Perhaps I'm in error to see the game as anything more than a way to get money, but it's how I feel. Not everyone will agree.