Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[rufus]

That's a very different (if interesting) game. Considering, for example, the importance of implied odds in NL, it's going to have significantly different strategy from poker.

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a very different (if interesting) game. Considering, for example, the importance of implied odds in NL, it's going to have significantly different strategy from poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why??

[imfatandugly]

funny, this game makes it correct to call an allin with the nut low on the river sometimes. For example you have 2h3h on a board of 4h5hJQK after heavy betting on the flop and turn and your facing a half sized pot bet on the river.

[Siegmund]

I agree that it may be an interesting game - the strategy of which will be so different from current poker as to be nearly unrecognizable.

As noted above, you'll be in a position where your decision on the late streets may have relatively little to do with your chance of winning the showdown, and quite a lot to do with how much money you put into the pot on previous streets.

Now, if there's one thing we pound into our heads when we learn poker, it is "once you put the money into the pot, it's not yours anymore." Here you have a game you are guaranteed that a certain quite-possibly-significant chunk of the pot IS yours as long as you stay to the end.

I see waaaaaaaaay more showdowns than in current poker, even in deep-stack NL... completely unplayable at limit, where it becomes an "everyone who sees the flop stays to the end every time" game.

Or did I misunderstand the rules, and you get your share of the early-street pot even if you fold before the end? I don't think you meant that - because if you did, you've just completely wiped out the whole concept of pot odds.

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
you get your share of the early-street pot even if you fold before the end?

[/ QUOTE ] I doubt it.

This game would have some interesting strategy changes.

One result I could forsee is pushing the turn/river VERY often against multiple opponents, especially into big pots. Indeed, you could often slap your cards down on the table face up, show your opponents they are drawing dead, and push all in. If they had proper odds on earlier streets, it's correct for them to call, but you want them to fold.

Omaha would not work in this game.

[imfatandugly]

id play it.

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a very different (if interesting) game. Considering, for example, the importance of implied odds in NL, it's going to have significantly different strategy from poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this game?
I'm looking at second post that is deleted.

Mods ... - why don't you delete the complete threads in such cases ...

[Siegmund]

It looks like the mod deleted an *account*, either for spamming multiple forums with the same thing or for being overtly commercial. Mod may not have even looked to see what threads OP posted to.

OP proposed a game wherein the money contributed on each street is segregated, and at the showdown, the money for each street is distributed according to who was ahead on that street. Simple example: KK vs AA heads up, Kxx flop, x turn, A river. Instead of pushing the whole pot to the set of aces, in this game a) 80% of the preflop money goes to AA, b) 90% of the flop money goes to KK (AA has 2 outs twice), c) 95% of the turn money goes to KK (AA has 2 outs once now), d) 100% of the river money goes to AA.

OP's concept was to reward KK and punish AA for their decisions in the middle of the hand, even if the longshot draw came in on the end. The odd feature of the game that we are complaining about is that under OP's rules, the set of kings has so much pot equity that he can call a significant river bet with 0% chance of winning the river pot, to avoid losing his claim to the flop and turn pots.