This is THE MOST SKILL-BASED CARD GAME EVER.


Here are the rules explained:

Nil Poker has almost the same rules as poker (52-card deck). The only difference between playing poker (52-card deck) and Nil Poker is that there are 13 Nil Cards added to common deck of playing cards (52 cards) in Nil Poker (all together there is 65 cards). Nil Cards are meaningless cards. All 13 Nil Cards look the same. Nil Cards have no value. Nil Cards can not make any valuable card combination. Every card is better than Nil Card (2 high is more valuable than Nil Card). All the other rules (blinds, dealer, betting rounds,…) are the same as in poker (52-card deck).

Please share your thoughts, opinions,... about this NEW POKER VARIANT. Thank you.

I hate it.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

in theory Id say not a bad idea coming up with a new variant, but more skill? I dont think thats what poker needs right now. You dont want it to become closer to chess, as variance is a vital part of poker itself. Good job coming up with something new , but I wouldnt play this.

I removed the video. It's just promotional material, it does not add anything to what you already wrote.

As is written above, the problem with poker is not that there's not enough skill involved. The fact that a fish can have a winning night, week, or even month is what makes poker possible at all. Once your skilled players have fleeced the fish, the game is over and we all go back to regular jobs.

Hello istack_u5. Thank you for your feedback.
Poker(52-card deck) is a game of big variance and small advantage against less experienced players. I believe the game of poker at the moment needs exactly little more skills involved in the game. I know a lot of people playing poker that believe that poker(52-cards deck) has too much luck in it. You can run really bad at poker(luck) and really good(luck).
Main reason i believe Nil Poker is going to be played a lot in future – i am very confident about this (Everybody is playing poker(52-card deck) because this is the only widely spread skill-based game in casinos).. If somebody does not want skills involved while gambling they can play roulette, slot machines,… (the people that play poker wants skills involved in the game). So, Nil poker is more skill-based that poker(52 –card deck). I do not see how anybody that is playing poker does not want to play Nil Poker instead of poker. It is obvious decision if you want to play skill-based card game that you will play the most skill-based card game there is.And which is very easy to play.
Added Nil Cards only change the outcome of winning cards from 5 to 10 percent (depends on the cards and hands). This percentage may sounds low (same poker thrill for players), but it makes a huge difference if you play a lot of hands. For example this 5 to 10 percent advantage make break-even players (or even slighty losing) winning players in long run. The less experienced players or gamblers(I do not like the words fishes) will win a little less now. So this is not coming even close to a chess. Still variance involved. But slighty less. In my opinion exactly the right amount of variance less.

Hello RustyBrooks. Thank you for your feedback.
I believe it is all about what customers wanted – everybody that wants to play poker (they are playing poker because it is skill-based game). Everybody can play roulette and slot machines if they do not like skill factor.
Added Nil Cards only change the outcome of winning cards from 5 to 10 percent (depends on the cards and hands). This percentage may sounds low (same poker thrill for players), but it makes a huge difference if you play a lot of hands. For example this 5 to 10 percent advantage make break-even players (or even slighty losing) winning players in long run. The less experienced players or gamblers(I do not like the words fishes) will win a little less now. So this is not coming even close to a chess. Still variance involved. But slighty less. In my opinion exactly the right amount of variance less.
I think that this change of the outcome of winning hands will not have an effect that you mentioned. Here is one of many reasons why i think that: At Nil poker You can allways bluff, over-play oponnent,... if you are good. I think this means more bluffing and more hero-calling in general at nil poker,.. Also, everybody likes to brag about bluffing and hero-calling in general - more of this at nil poker. So, how cool is too brag that you won or even bluff at nil poker( the most skill-based card game ever created), even if you only get lucky… Overall losing players are losing in poker (52-card deck) and they will be losing in nil poker(slighty more).
Also, Gambling is multibillion dollar industry. Internet poker itself is multibillion dollar industry. That being said, there are still a lot of countries where gambling and playing poker is illegal – a lot of companies are having problems proving to local governments that poker (52-card deck) is game of skill, therefore it is illegal(main reason).This is just my quess(not saying this is what will happens). This can change with release of Nil Poker – the most skill-based card game ever created. To conclude, Nil Poker has huge market potential in already multibillion dollar industry. I believe that Nil Poker has huge potential to break all sorts of records. I am saying this only in theory.
These are just few of many answers to your question. There is really a lot to gain (with nil poker) for all the companies involved in poker.

The natural solution to this game (played as HoldEm) would be to play very very nitty. Of course, at a full ring game, anybody dealt a single 'nil' card should fold. This means that we'd expect way more hands to not see a flop, and there is much less value in playing hands like suited-connectors, so those would go by the wayside as well. Playing medium pocket pairs would flop a lot less sets too, so those would be less valuable. What we'd have is a game where people would only want to play big cards and big pairs, and fold everything else. And we'd have a game where everybody knows they never have odds to draw.

The natural evolution of this game is something with very little action.

It might be fun for a bunch of "old man coffee" types, but other than that, not many people would enjoy this game, in my opinion. Many many people enjoy action, and people enjoy gambling - that's why they play poker, and that's why skilled players have a tremendous skill advantage at normal 52-card HoldEm.

What is "most skill based" actually intended to mean?

1. Is it supposed to mean taking the least number of hands for a specified winrate to reach a certain confidence interval?

2. Is it supposed to mean allowing for the largest possible edge among players such that if one player plays a particular card game as badly as possible and one player plays such game as well as possible, the player playing well will have the largest winrate at some variant of nil poker as opposed to other card games?

3. Is it supposed to mean the same in #2, but rather than the first player playing as badly as possible, such player plays around the current real world average? 80% of average? 120% of average?

4. Is it supposed to mean having the largest average discrepancy in the equity of all-in hands when 2 or more players are all-in? So, the claim is that the average discrepancy between all-in hands when 2 or more players are all-in would be smaller in a certain variant of poker than it would be in a nil-poker version of that variant of poker? (From the posts, to me, this seems to be the thing the Original Poster is getting at. Out of the 4 options I list here, it is also the only one that I immediately can tell that I think is accomplished by nil poker. It also seems to me to be a very weak definition of "most skill based.")

so this just becomes a blind stealing game then? where pocket pairs, A high and K high rule. Having a nil card in your hand doesnt automatically mean fold, if you are in position and folded to you with A- or K- its still probably good enough to steal the blinds with, or even go to showdown if called. Pocket pairs grow to 60-40 favorites over AK allin pre (roughly?)

all this is, is changing the math for no reason, and removing all the fun hands and draws and action from the game. terrible.

Thank you pocketzeroes for your feedback.
I do not believe the way to win at nil poker is to be tight(tight players are not making money in general(in most cases) in poker(only in rare cases), as poker(52-card game) is going in the way to be more aggressive every year. By that i mean playing nil poker vs at least average players(sure you will play tight vs super gamblers)…But it is all about adapting to others in poker. To make this very easy to understand nobody is going to pay your allin(with your nuts), if you will be playing every 20th hand… You will have to play lose a bit in nil poker sometimes if you will want to get paid… Actually this is what is all about in poker(52-card game), but becomes even more valuable in nil poker. Look for example HU players(52-card deck)… you can expect it to be boring as they play a lot of hole hands and for sure they do not hit board every time,… but there is a lot of raising there(really a lot)… there is so many 3-betting, even preflop with »not good hands« and so on. And this is all because there is gap for bluffing(as oponents can not hit every showdown).. So there is even bigger gap in nil poker.
I believe poker is played for one reason.. Because it is rare game that is widespread and it actually requeires skills, it is very easy to play with simple rules and it can be played in casino. You can allways play roulette and slot machines if you do not like skills… I think if people want to play skill-based game is obvious they will play the most skill-based poker variant there is- Nil Poker.

Thank you Lego05 for the feedback.
First, i would like to explain to everybody why poker(52-card deck) is skill-based. That is because there is raise(meaning you can bluff, or fold) button. If there would not be raise button then it would not be skill-based game. Everybody would have same chance to win(if playing HU there will be 50% vs 50% and so on). By adding raise button to the poker(52-card deck) we can either bluff or hero call, hand selection, aggresivness level,…(this requires skills). So by doing that we gain some advantage over the persons who does not know all that. So, the only thing that makes poker game of skill is raise button( to make it really short to understand). Because we add 13 nil cards, we are a little more likely to miss flop and a little likely to have a little less »good hands«. So what this makes to the problem mentioned above, it requires skills to bluff(hero-call,…). If you will miss more hands you will need to bluff more. Those added 13 nil cards also make your hand a little more powerful(slighty less percent for other people to win against better hands with worst hands). Again you put yourself in better position just because raise, aggresive play, before and so on, before. If you would play tight(lets say 20 hand) this is not going to work(again skills required) against majority of people(average person).And a lot more.So to answer you question. I will just write answers for nil poker against poker(52-card deck) as it is allmost impossible to prove that nil poker is more skilled then other card games. Also, most of answers will be written for HU(heads up; one on one) nil hold´em vs HU texas holdem as this variant is the easiest to understand, but the same answers go for other nil poker variants against poker(52-card game) variants(just a lot more complicated to explain and understand).
1.True.In short term you will win more while playing nil poker then poker(52-card game). For example there is 50 - 50 percent chance at HU nil holdem or HU texas holdem to win or to lose the hand if going to showdown. If you understand all the things that makes poker a game of skills(things are written above) and you know how to use them better then opponent, than you will fold hand more easily(if you think u are behind) and you will get more money out of opponent if your hand is winning one(also there is less chance that opponent will make better hand then yours in nil poker then in poker, if you have winning hand at the beginning). Also, you can allways bluff oponent. You can bluff slighty more at nil poker as person will hit slightly less.
2. True, because all the things that are written in this post and all the posts i allready published here. This number is allmost the same as 4.Also, there are some ways to play even more terrible then this: Person A goes all-in every hand preflop. Person B is making selection of hands that will call with person A´allin(this hole hands are for example: every pair and 2 cards over 10). The amount of chips that person B will have over 1000 hands played in nil hold´em is bigger than the amount of chips person B will have while playing texas hold´em. This is just example of preflop options. The same thing is true for all the flops, turns, andr rivers (with a modification what is good hand for person B). The same goes for other variants: Nil Omaha,…
3. True.If player plays current world average this is considered bad play(as average players are minus). As i mentioned earlier, nil poker gives additional advantage in the hands that allready have advantage against opponent´s hand at holdem. Nil poker give this hands 5 to 10 percent advantage. If you are playing poker that is above the average, answer is still yes. Reasons are mentioned above and also this: You will hit less flops, turns and rivers in Nil Poker, but your opponents will hit less flops, turns and rivers, too. This means that if you are good poker player, you can always bluff. Nil Poker opens a new, for now, totally undiscovered territory of poker skills that was filled at poker (52-card deck) with bad beats and this territory is pure skill-based. There is lower percentage number of bad beats at Nil Poker.Let us go a little further with this point no. 3. There is also bigger adventage at nil poker at experienced players vs slighty less exprienced players for the reason mentioned above. Basically at poker(52-card game) there is allmost 0 percent adventage over the last mentioned players(there is so many bad beats, if two players are very close with skills; basically both players losing money by rake).

What is the reason you think nil poker would be more skill based? You've offered no justification for this so far.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Thank you tapeitup for feedback.
Please look the answer to your question in above posts. Also there are no classic preflop coinflips (50% vs 50% chances of winning) in Nil Hold´em (AK vs 66 – preflop).The chances of winning with pocket(hole cards) against two over cards (hole cards) are bigger in Nil Hold´em than in poker (52-card deck) – like you mentioned (around 60%-40%). This is better, because it is lower possibility to get pocket (hole cards) than two over cards (hole cards). Hands like AK, or AQ (hole cards) lose a bit of value against low pockets (hole cards) but they have bigger chances of winning against two under cards (hole cards; for example 10 and 6) in Nil Hold´em. All those changed chances of winning is one of the reasons that makes Nil Poker the most skill-based poker game ever created.
Also, these changes of outcomes of winning hands are just by 5 to 10 percent. For example, calling allin on flop with straight draw against high pair is bad move in holdem (52-card deck;33 percent to complete draw) and it is a bit worst in nil holdem(around 26 percent to complete draw).

Not if everyone plays exploitative poker.

Nowadays most Poker players are only straying from GTO when they find a 'fish', or a weak player, and so that is the only time there is much potential profit at the tables. But I foresee that GTO is about to die, and I also think that 'fish' are about to learn to exploit, and so I think that we are all going to be battling it out exploitative stylee pretty soon. And if that happens as planned, the profits for us all will be HUGE!

If you think about it, all GTO players should love an exploitative teacher like me. You shouldn't all slate me like you do. Maybe you should pay me to teach my style to others lol!

A new version of poker will restart everyone far from GTO, which means lots of extra profit, but I expect this new version will be designed to make GTO harder to achieve. It will make exploitation easier, and I don't think this version really does that?? I personally don't think a new version of the game is needed or really wanted. I just think the sites need to ban GTO, and/or, everyone needs to learn to exploit properly.

I don't think this post really addresses my post that it was in response to.

Also, leave a line between paragraphs. Your long posts are difficult and annoying to read with no spacing between paragraphs and the text all jammed together.

That would be interesting.

Pre-flop (6 handed):
Hero is UTG and is dealt 7s2c
Poker Site Popup: Hero selected "Fold". We have determined that this action is too close to GTO and, therefore, is not allowed. Please select another action.

Lol I think a long term assessment of the plays would work better. If, after say 10,000 hands, the player is too close to GTO then they get a month ban.

This sort of thing will obviously happen soon, but at the moment the foolish casinos are pushing new versions of the game that hinder exploitative players and help GTO!! (like zoom)

Thank you RustyBrooks for feedback. I think that you miss my previous post as mine and yours posts are one minute apart. I think i explained it with simple logic. Please feel free to tell me if you do not agree with the things that i wrote. Thank you.

Thank you for feedback Lego05. I really think i explained it very simple(with simple logic), but if i misinterpret something please tell me what. I would like to hear your opinion. Thank you.
Yes, i understand about paragraphs. Thank you for letting me know.

I hadn't read that until now. I have read it, but I don't feel particularly convinced. It seems to boil down to "you can bluff more" and "you will get sucked out on less".

The 2nd point appeals to some kinds of players but as I think has been pointed out already, getting sucked out on is actually a crucial aspect to making poker a maintainable game. If there were no suckouts in poker, it would quickly die or morph into something that was so little fun that most people wouldn't want to play it.

I think the first point is probably not true, or at least, it would only be true until people got used to it. People will, over time, see what kind of hands show down and adjust to it, whether on purpose or just naturally.

This would be a bit more fun played as a PLO variant... But again, I think having throwaway cards would make people play too tight preflop. So maybe you could make special hands with nil cards. Like maybe they count for nothing until you have five of a kind (a nil flush), then they beat full houses.

Edit: Nm this won't work, because if there's three nil cards on the board then there's not enough other cards to create a full house.

Whatever the case, I do think fun new poker variants *could* be created by adding a fifth suit to the deck, but I don't like "nil poker" as defined.

Of course a person named pocketzeroes wants to play nil poker

lol

Thank you RustyBrooks for the feedback. I really appreciate it.
Yes, I understand what you are trying to say. But the tournament games will still have huge variance. I really do not think that small difference in variance will have the effect you mentioned.

I understand about first point.It is hard to say. But i believe it is true for experienced players vs unexperienced players.

Thank you pocketzeroes for your feedback. I really appreciate it.
I like how you think out of the box.