Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

This may be an old idea, but since I haven't seen it anywhere I thought it might be worth writing down.

I have wondered 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.

Especially in cash games I don't see any negative effects from this, although it might change the optimum tournament strategies. And it would be trivially easy for any online poker rooms to implement.

Anybody have any thoughts on this? Would you play this kind of game if it was available?

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

If this were used in tourneys, how would players ever be eliminated?

EDIT: obviously there are times when a player might be drawing dead, but it seems to me if you're going to go all-in, you would do it preflop so that you would always be guaranteed part of the pot.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure folding would become much more rare. Pot odds would change because now suddenly losing a hand means you only lose a certain percentage of the pot. This means that it becomes much easier to call and raise than to fold in many cases.

Also, doesn't a lot of the suspense which makes poker enjoyable come from seeing those turn and river cards turn over when you are all in?

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

What about letting the players make a deal, if necessary? Since the best players often have EV to spare, but way too much variance than they care for in the tournaments, I'm sure a lot would go for 75-25 chop when they went all-in pre-flop with overpair.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

Why would the badly overmatched players even sit in this game? Without the mirage of luck to help them win on occasion I don't see how you could get them to play.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about letting the players make a deal, if necessary? Since the best players often have EV to spare, but way too much variance than they care for in the tournaments, I'm sure a lot would go for 75-25 chop when they went all-in pre-flop with overpair

[/ QUOTE ]

Something similar already exists in higher stakes live cash games. It is called "Running it Twice" or sometimes referred to as "Doing Business". I don't know the exact procedure, because I never play high enough and it varies from cardroom to cardroom, but when two players are all in, usually on the flop, they actually deal two sets of turn and river cards and the pot is split and and half is paid to the winner of each hand.

If I understand it correctly is doesn't change your EV on the hand but reduces your variance.

This would not and should not be allowed in a tournament.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

Isn't there also insurance? I think Hellmuth bought it from Greenstein in one of the HSP episodes- you get a certain % below you EV as a sure thing, and the hand is essentially over.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

This would ruin poker.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

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.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

Thanks for all the great comments.

One thing to clarify for some of the posters though. In cash games this would not change the "correct" strategy.

In other words it would not make preflop all-ins (or calling instead of folding) any better then they are now. The game and the optimum strategies would remain exactly the same for every part of the game that still has a skill element to it (i.e. not all the players are all in yet). The skill differences and EV's of the players would remain the same. The only difference being that the variance would get smaller. And this again would slightly reduce the bankroll requirements allowing winning players to play in higher games than they currently can. That is why I would choose this type of game over "traditional poker".

Good points made in the thread though, and you guys are right that the large amount of luck is one of the reasons that keep the fish in the game.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

Why the hell would you want to reduce the amount of luck?

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why the hell would you want to reduce the amount of luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good players would like to eliminate luck so they dont get outdrawn by players like fraac, who suck at poker... anyways...

Ive been thinking about this game idea for a while and the OP beat me to a post. Im still thinking about it, but Im not sure this game would work in certain multiway pots. Ill get back with you later on that...

Another thing is that it would affect home games. People would have to buy something that would calculate the odds. This would not only slow down the game, but also might stir up controversy with the typical moron. Even an intelligent person might believe the percentages are wrong or that he is being cheated...

Its a good idea. Are you sure you are not related to me, OP, as my brother and I were talking about this idea the night before you posted this. He came up with it after hearing all my horrendous outdraw beats at Full Tilt. I still swear this site is rigged but thats a whole new topic...

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

Well why don't we all just play chess then? Is it because we're inveterate losers who would never put in the hours?

Costliest thing in poker isn't luck, my dears. It's delusions. ZOMG I LOVE YOU GUYS.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

lol. you really do not want to play me in chess.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

Yeah, I knew that. I don't want to share a chalet with you either, or do lunch.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

a chalet? wow. dude. what planet are you from. is it the rainbow planet?

hey fraac, are you a homosexual?

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

Back in the day, the act of getting or offering insurance was very widespread. Our very own Dr. Sklansky, was often called on to do the math.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

Play these hands with an ordered preference. Tighten up at the beginning. Loosen up as the blinds increase. Loosen up if your stack is much bigger than his.

AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, AKs, 77, AQs, AKo, AJs, AQo, ATs, 66, KQs, AJo, ATo, A9s, KJs, A8s, KTs, KQo, 55, A9o, KJo, A7s, QJs, K9s, KTo, A8o, A6s, QTs, A5s, A4s, A7o, QJo

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

Bad players would lose almost every single session and get bored of the game very quickly.

They need suckouts that win them the whole pot so they can have the rare winning session, that keeps em coming back.

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bad players would lose almost every single session and get bored of the game very quickly.

They need suckouts that win them the whole pot so they can have the rare winning session, that keeps em coming back.

[/ QUOTE ]

AWww. we wouldnt want to disappoint the fish. jesus. i fuc-king hate people who suckout on me. f-uck em all

Re: Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
i fuc-king hate people who suckout on me.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, then you hate the people who make poker profitable.