Reducing the Amount of Luck in Poker

[BluffB]

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?

[doucy]

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.

[embermage1]

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?

[Dima2000123]

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.

[NotFadeAway]

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.

[steamboatin]

[ 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.

[Osprey]

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.

[jogger08152]

This would ruin poker.

[jackaaron]

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.

[BluffB]

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.