I played this variant(with 52-cards). It is super fun(everything that I wrote in previous post is true). "Crazy Poker" define this variant very good in my opinion. But, I actually prefer new variant (65-card deck). I really like outplaying my opponents and all that I wrote about new variant (65-card deck) allready.

THEORY - Nil Poker – THE FUTURE OF POKER – Golden age of poker will be back

Hello people, I did a lot of reserches about future of poker, history of poker, evolution of poker, poker in general, all poker variants,.. Here I am posting my THEORY.

If I believe that something is going to be played in the future, I have to consider why everybody that is in poker bussines, will want new poker variant (variant with 65-cards).I am talking about poker players(losing players, recreational players, winning players), poker coaches, web pages that promote poker(affiliate marketing,…), people/companies who sell poker related products(books, t-shirts,…), casinos(online and offline). If Nil Poker gets played:

Reasons to like Nil Poker(65-card deck) for:

POKER COACHES:

As this new variant is a bit more complicated than regular poker, it is harder to play this variant good(GTO,..). It is harder to bluff, hero-call,.. than to fold on average in poker,..Everybody want to bluff, hero-call(special thrill),… More of this at this new poker variant.

Profit for poker coaches will increase.

PEOPLE WHO SELL POKER RELATED PRODUCTS – POKER BOOKS

There is not a lot of change to be made while playing this new poker variant vs regular poker, but only if you understand poker really good. All the books written about poker: dynamics, initiative,pot odds,… will help you a lot at Nil Poker. Basically you will have a lot bigger advantage in Nil Poker vs poker(52-card deck) if you have read a lot of poker books(52-card deck).

People will be buying more poker books.

PEOPLE/COMPANIES WHO SELL POKER RELATED PRODUCTS – T-SHIRTS,…OTHER

Basically there is a lot to gain for them if Nil Poker will be played. Selling all kind of new shirts, hoodies,...

New and large amount of new profit.

WINNING POKER PLAYERS:

It is pretty obvious why winning poker players are playing poker (because of money).

They will make more money playing this poker variant.

LOSING POKER PLAYERS and RECREATIONAL POKER PLAYERS:

Losing and recreational poker players play poker because it is the game of skill. If people do not like to play the skill-games they can play other casino games(slot machines, roulette,…). They also play poker because the game is easy to play, easy to understand and because it can be played at casinos or with friends. Even for the losing poker players and recreational poker players there is thrill that they can win at skill-game vs others(everybody wants to outsmart others; more of »outsmarting« at nil poker:here calls, bluff,…). For me it is obvious if person chose to play poker instead of unskilled casino games(slot machines,..), that this person will chose the most skill-based poker variant(additional thrill).

There will also be more winner poker players at nil poker, so this is additional reason why losing players and recreational players will want to play this new variant. Basically, if you do no have winners(constant ones; not the ones that win one big tournament(this is pure luck)), the game loses some sense, as poker is advertised by every casino as the game of skills. The winner poker player´s stories are the main reason why poker is popular(they attrack a lot of players). Winner poker stories are also the best advertisment every casino can have(and it is free). Also, because there will be more winners, there is bigger chance that more people will know winner poker players personally and maybe even play them(and how cool is that some recreational player wins poker pro – even if being lucky- in the most skill-based poker variant).

More skill, more winners, more fun, new ways to deal with situations, more complexed problems,… – NIL POKER – more recreational and losing players.

CASINOS:

Less and less people are playing poker. This trend will continue(a lot of people agree with this; on this forum too) untill….Poker in today´s form will be unplayable as NLHE in couple of years from now. By unplayable I mean there will not be a lot(if any) winner poker players(constant winners; winners are the ones who have huge impact on amount of recreational players who are playing(everybody wants to win at poker in general; but first there has to be realistic chance to win; also all the things allready written in this post)) . If there would not be any winner poker players, the game of poker would˙t make any sense, as for it is a game of skills.

Basically, poker as NLHE(other current variants too), is being analyzed to the perfection and it will be analyzed even more detailed every year. Also, every year more and more bots(AI) will be playing online poker with close to perfect GTO(playing very good poker). It is harder to make money playing poker every year, and this will continue. So, basically less and less players are playing online poker and trend will continue in the future, untill it will became unplayable. I believe live poker will have same destiny, because nano-technology is developing with great speed.

If Nil Poker will be played, i believe it will be new golden age of poker (as it was couple of years ago with regular poker; I believe even bigger poker boom, than it was in the past).

New Poker variant will probably change »rake income« for casinos(this is how casinos are making money). Probably, with the same amount of people playing nil poker vs poker(52-card deck) casinos might make less amount of a rake at nil poker vs poker(52-card deck). But that automatically means more money for the people (more great poker stories and all that has been allready mentioned). But, if the number of people who will be playing poker(Nil Poker) increases a lot(because of all the reasons mentioned in this post), that means a lot more profit at nil poker compared to poker(52-card deck) in general(poker player´s (52-card deck) traffic is decreasing) for casinos. If people will stop playing online poker(52-card deck) that means zero rake(no money for casinos).

Poker(52-card deck) is not legal to play in some countries, because it is considered as a game that includes a bit too much luck(one of the reasons). Imagine what could happened, because Nil Poker is more skill-based,..

The profit for casinos will increase.

WEB PAGES THAT PROMOTE POKER(affiliate marketing,…):

The same thing as I wrote in CASINOS category.

To conclude: EVERYBODY WILL LIKE THIS NEW POKER VARIANT. FUTURE OF POKER. GOLDEN AGE OF POKER WILL BE BACK.

This is my THEORY about the FUTURE OF POKER. I did a lot of researches, analyze it,… This is actually very short version of my study.

I would like to hear yours opinion about all that I wrote. I posted this theory here, because I want to hear opinions from people who are involed in poker for a long time and because it is allways good to hear second opinion.Thank you.

Your explanation does not make coherent sense - and in addition you make a lot of unfounded claims.

It IS possible for there to both be more winners, and for winners to make more money, although you don't really have any kind of proof either will happen. If they are true, it just means the losers will immediately go broke. This is bad for EVERYONE you mentioned.

I also don't think you understand the psychology of why poker is played. I do not agree that casinos market it as a game of skill, or that players necessarily think of it as a game of skill, or that naive players have any hope of judging whether it's a game of skill or not.

Since a lot of skilled players will consider blockers I am not sure how a nil card will ever be played. It's always going to be more advantageous to bluff without the nil card than with it. Are we assuming the concentration of nil cards will force people to showdown because they will show up quite frequently in hands?

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

Yeah I guess with 1/5 of the cards being nil that's likely going to happen. Still not sure people will bluff with nil cards. It's just more likely people will showdown lighter without them.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

Rusty,

This kind of response is just going to get you labeled as a poster with "bad intentions" (at least that's what happened in the OP's thread in Beginners Questions). If you keep it up he will call you a hater and not respond to you any more.

Let's keep this positive!

Everyone and their pet is going to want to play this. it's the most skillful game ever in the history of the world and before that. The addition of nothing surely makes for a much more interesting game and everyone is going to profit, at the same time!! Nobody loses!!

Can we, PLEASE, get this game FASTER?

Unless the distribution of losses among recs greatly differs from what’s current, these two statements directly conflict. It’s hard to see how there could be more winnings for regs AND more rec winners. I didn’t see any such notion of distribution change (which would involve a smaller number of rec losers but with big losses) and if you think such change will happen, tell us why.

With nil-quads being so strong a hand and not so hard to make, there should be plenty of semi-bluffing opportunities with a nil card or two in your hand, no? For instance if you have NN and the flop has one N.

Maybe I haven't read enough posts but I thought a nil card meant automatic loss so having multiple nil cards in your hand would be awful as it's more likely people don't have nil cards. Or maybe I missed the whole point of a nil card.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

Yup I missed the point. It's not an automatic loss it's just a value of card that has value 0 and no suit. Nevermind my previous ramblings.

I can only speak for myself, but at this point in the thread I welcome random ramblings from other posters (if you get my meaning).

I certainly do haha.

Hello, all.

I would really like to thank you all for posting to this thread. It really means a lot to me. The important reason why I post this THEORY(future of poker) is because I want to know if I made some big(obvious) mistake in my THEORY.It is also possible that I may be wrong in some points of theory and in some points of theory I am right. I really want to know the truth and the maths behind this theory(if I am wrong, right, possible,…). I do not think I am wrong with this THEORY, but even if I am wrong, I will be more than happy if I can correct my theory. I do not want to tell lies, I want truth.

Again, thank you all for your constructive comments.

Hello, RustyBrooks.

Yes, I agree that I made some unfounded claims(I believe just about future predictions). This is my theory(better word would be prediction). But, when discussing innovative things nobody can say for 100 percent sure what will happen in the future, as it was never done before. I made claims about present, that are all true(I believe). From that claims(present), I predict what will happened in the future in my opinion, so all this predictions have healthy foundations(and in my opinion, are the most logical predictions). In my future-claims I am never 100 percent wrong(by that I mean that I did not describe some future event that is impossible to happened). In the worst case people can say my theory is possible. But, if I consider all that I have said, I believe it is very good chance for my theory to become reality.

I think that losing players will lose their money slighty faster than in regular poker(not a lot faster).

I do not think we will ever get on same page about psychology of poker. I think that I am right, and you think the opposite. There is no way either one can convince the other one what is right or what is wrong. But If I try to look through your eyes(about psychology), then yes, my theory may be wrong. And I think it is vice versa.

Thank you for your post.

Hello, just_grindin.

I can understand why you missed function of Nil Cards. First post does not mention new Nil Poker combination – Nil Quads(four or more nil cards). Nil combination was added later, and I can not change the first post now. Nil Quads make game less nity, more fun(added value),…

I will post rules here(finalyzed) again(as probably some other people who read this thread missed post with added nil combination too):

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 Poker Playing Cards). All 13 Nil Cards look the same. Nil Cards are meaningless cards. Nil Cards have no value (blank cards). Nil cards can not make any combination except from Nil Quads (4 or more nil cards). Nil Quads are more valuable than any flush and less valuable than any fullhouse. 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). You can play any poker variant with Nil Poker Playing Cards: Nil Hold´em, Nil Omaha,…

New Nil Poker combination: Nil Quads - Four (4) or more nil cards.

Nil Poker Hand Ranking:
… < Flush < Nil Quads < Full House < …

Maybe this new nil poker combination changed your opinion about this new poker variant.

Thank you for your post.

You haven't *really* posted anything I'd consider theory. Some descriptions of how you think the game will change with the addition of nil cards but nothing really solid enough to criticize.

This doesn't mean there's nothing to criticize, just that you haven't really provided enough substance for there to be anything to work on the theory of.

Hello, statmanhal.

For easier understanding I will explain it with example. Please, understand that this example will be the most basic explanation of the statement I made(how is it possible). I will try to explain it with Percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time. This numbers will not be realistic number, but I just want to show principle behind the statment that I made. Also, there is no way I can tell for sure the exact number of Percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time at nil poker, because I do not have even close enough stats to tell the right number for Nil Poker.

Here is example:

While Playing Poker(52-card deck):

100 people deposit 10 dollars each. Together this is 1000 dollars. After some amount of hands played there is 100 dollars in peoples accounts(the rake took other money: casino made 900 dollars). Percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time is 90 percent(this is not realistic number;using this number for better understanding). There is 5 people with 15 dollars on account and there is 95 people with aprox. 0,26 dollars(everyone of 95 people have the same amount) in their account(all together is 100 dollars). There is 5 percent of winning players and 95 percent of losing players.

While Playing Nil Poker:

If we took 90% rake/deposits that casinos make after some time at poker(52-card deck), we have to take less percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time at Nil Poker, because there would be less amount of bad beats, less cracks, more skills,... at nil poker. For better understanding of example this number would be 70% (not realistic number).

Anyway, 100 people deposit 10 dollars each. Together this is 1000 dollars. After some amount of hands played in Nil Poker, there is 300 dollars in peoples accounts(casino took 700 dollars with rake). 8 people have 30 dollars each(all together this is 240). 3 persons have 20 dollars each(all together this is 60 dollars). All the other people have 0 amount of money on their accounts. All together there is 11 winning players(11 percent of winning players) and 89 percent of losing players. So, winner poker players made more money(20 dollars profit(some) vs 5 dollars profit) in this case and there is more winner poker players(11 percent vs 5 percent).

To conclude:

If concluding from example, this means less rake for the casinos on average if same number of players are playing nil poker vs poker(52-card deck). But considering all the things I allready mentioned in my THEORY( poker(52-card deck) player´s pool is decreasing; Nil Poker´s pool will probably increase, and so on;all the reasons why),on a long run,this means more money for casinos if people are playing Nil Poker vs poker(52-card deck).
I expect decrease of percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time at Nil Poker vs poker(with different coreleation of percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time at Nil Poker vs poker, than it is mentioned in the example). I can not tell how much less rake/deposits that casinos make after some time,because I did not play even close enough of Nil Poker games to consider the reliable statistic number. Basically I can not tell how much more skill-based nil poker is than poker(52-card deck) in a long run.

Also , I am sorry for probably not using the right terms, but I believe my example is easy to understand.

Thank you for your post.

Why does there being less bad beats cause there to be less rake paid?

No that can't be because OP said this will be better for everyone. I don't think poker sites think getting less money is better for them.

To the OP, you don't need to sell this idea to folks on this forum, you eed to talk a casino into spreading your game for a month and see if people like it or not. Supply them with decks of Nil cards and get them to test it. Then you will have your proof either way. Just like any new game, test it in a casino and see if it takes off.

He says a paragraph later that there will be more people playing so the site will get more money.

But literally not a single figure in the whole example is supported by anything.

There is no reason to believe the rake will be lower.

I am going to say this one time: stop making stuff up. If there is a demonstrable *reason* that your game has certain properties, fine. But you don't just get to claim that it takes more skill or produces less rake, etc, etc. That is not how this forum works.

I am really close to closing or even deleting this thread and preventing future ones on your game.

Hello, Lego05.

Less rake paid on average beetween Nil poker vs poker(52-card deck) has got to do with a lot of things(including: bad beats,cracks, more skills, new card deck construction, nil cards,…; all things mentioned are related).

Anyway I will answer to your question with example(i will explain just the bad-beat thing, but actually all the things mentioned above are related).I will explain it in the most basic example.

While Playing Poker(52-card deck):

Two people(Person A and Person B) play HU-cash game. After x amount of hands, 10 times it happens that one player have AA and the other one have KK(every player has AA vs KK 5 times; together this happens 10 times). They go allin preflop every time when this happens(this is what they both want; »GTO move«; it is just bad luck that the one with KK sees oponent´s AA).For better understanding let us say that AA wins KK every time(without rake person A and person B would be break-even). So for example if they have everytime 100 dollars each when this happens and if the rake is 5% they lose 50 dollars each in the x amount of hands because of bad beats(person´s bad beat and opponent´s bad beat).

While Playing Nil Poker:

Two people(Person A and Person B) play HU-cash game. After x amount of hands(same amount of hands played as in poker(52-card deck), 8(this amount is lower than at poker(52-card deck) because there are nil cards added) times it happens that one player have AA and the other one have KK(every player has AA vs KK 5 times; together this happens 10 times). They go allin preflop every time when this happens(this is what they both want; »GTO move«; it is just bad luck that the one with KK sees oponent´s AA).For better understanding let us say that AA wins KK every time(without rake person A and person B would be break-even). So for example if they have everytime 100 dollars each when this happens and if the rake is 5% they lose 40 dollars each in the x amount of hands because of bad beats (person´s bad beat and opponent´s bad beat). Anyway, there is great possiblity that in the 2 missing hands that are left at Nil Poker(10-8=2) would not be that big of a pot(less rake – probably not allin) and probably in those 2 hands would not be badbeat(probability).

To conclude:

In the above example casino made less money (with rake) after the amount of hands played at Nil Poker vs poker(52-card deck).I have to state again that this is just very basic example(less bad beats are not the only reason for less rake).Less chip sending to each other(during bad beats and some other things mentioned above), again and again and again, means less rake(at nil poker).

Thank you for your post.

No, this doesn't follow.

In a game with a bunch of extra nil cards, this just means 52-poker hands get elevated in value - all of them do, because of all the new hands in null-poker that have null cards. So AK and QQ etc will increase in value and people will get them in as happily as they did with KK before.

Further, reducing or eliminating passing money back and forth does not reduce rake. Presumably you're implying that the money will flow one way more often, meaning the better player will win a higher percentage of hands in nil poker. You haven't show this to be true, but it doesn't matter, because it won't change rake.

Scenario 1:
player A and player B play 10 hands. Each hand is 20bb, rake at 5%. So from each pot, 1bb is taken. 10bb rake paid.

Scenario 2:
player A and player B play 10 hands. Player A wins all of them. Each hand is 20bb, rake at 5%. So from each pot, 1bb is taken. 10bb rake paid.

It's exactly the same.

About the only claim you can make - if the initial claim is true, which again, I do not grant that it is - is that player B will go broke sooner, so they will play fewer hands overall, and A will bust B quicker, paying less rake.

The sites don't want this
player B doesn't want this
player A doesn't want this (if he's smart)

so, after multiple posts denying that your variant is significantly nittier than nlhe (which is too nitty to begin with), you finally admit it, to support your other point? Ofc, nittier game with same rake structure will have rake less.

this thread is just a gift that keeps on giving