Hello, kb5zcr.Thank you for your advice. I really appriciate it.

Yes, I agree with you.I do not need to sell my idea here. I will have to release a game, so everything will be clear(all the answers,…). But before I am not 99,9 percent sure, that what I am saying is correct, I will not release the game(if I have to, I will change my opinions(if somebody will prove that I am wrong); I want truth; it is hard to say if something is for 100 percent sure at new things). I am not here because I want to sell my game here or something similar, I am here(at this forum), because I want to discuss everything that can be discussed regarding new poker variant.Maybe I did some bad calulations(very low percent, but still possible), predictions,... I also, like a lot, that some people here are looking the things from different angles(this really helps me). I also think that people want to discuss new things in general.

Thank you for your post.

Hello, RustyBrooks.

I understand what you are saying (but I am not making stuff up). I said that I did not came here because I want to sell my idea. I came here because I want to discuss new poker variant(very hard to do, because there is no stats available of this new variant; the best way to discuss new poker variant in my opinion is with people who are in poker for a long time). As for this is poker forum, I think it is OK to discuss new poker things.From now on I will try to write only facts.

I will respect your decision about the future of this thread.

Anyway, you are wrong with your last post. I will wrote where you are wrong until Monday, because I do not have a lot of time at the moment.

Thank you for your post.

mod: "OP, you're making stuff up!"
OP: "I'm not making stuff up!"

dude, that's not how discussions work. Every time someone makes a point about your game, you quote it, and then write an ultra long about something almost unrelated, hoping others won't understand what you are writing - but they do. You came to the forum where most people have very deep understanding of everything poker related, many (like me) have been making a living out of the game for many years, you can't just confuse us with long posts.

Hello all, I just want to share some of my thoughts:

When the future of poker is in question and predictions are not really bright(a lot of people agree with this on this forum too):

-a little discussion about this was also in this thread,

- http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/32...-dead-1672183/

-http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/32...poker-1658155/
,…

I would like to believe that people like me are welcome here(people who are trying to make some change regarding the future of poker). Even if I am wrong, at least you are closer to the possible solution of the future of poker(in the worst case it has been discussed more:even if you believe poker in current form can survive for 100 years and more). I do not understand how this can be ever wrong.

I believe you need people like me more than I(we) need you. Sure it is very good, as I stated a lot of times, for me that I can debate about this new poker variant here. But in the worst case, if you close this thread I can debate about this somewhere else(sure it will be a lot harder; not so practical as here; but it is possible;I would not care actually).I have sad thank you for help a lot of times, but you are maybe helping yourself too. And the way I see this you should be thankful too, because I am at least trying to do something about the future of poker. If you do not discuss a lot of options, I believe this means lost opportunity of the possible solution for the future of poker for all of you. And maybe some other person which has maybe better idea than me, will see that you are not very innovative oriented and he will not want to talk about his amazing idea here or ever in his life.

I also have to say this: If here are still some people(people, whose opinion I respect) who think that: Nil poker is not more skill-based than poker(52-card deck), than I actually do not want to participate in this forum.

I found this great article. If you are really smart, than you will find that this article has great value when we are talking about Nil Poker:

http://www.pokerlistings.com/tournam...he-gap-concept

If moderators do not want that I discuss with others this poker variant on this forum, they can just say this and I will never discuss this variant on this forum again. I believe people want to discuss new poker things in general.

FACT: Nil Poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck).

Example:

Two people are playing HU poker with only these cards: kings,queens and jacks (all together there is 12 cards; less than at poker(52-card deck) and less than at nil poker(65-card deck)). There is allmost no skills involved if people are playing this game. Because the only difference beetween these two games is at number of cards, we can say that bigger number of cards is the reason that poker(52-card game) is more skill-based than KQJ-game. From here we can conclude that nil poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck). The other reason why Nil Poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck) is larger equity gaps between hands (the same is at KQJ vs poker(52-card game)).And also because of this I am concluding that Nil Poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck). Please feel free to show me one game vs another at which above mentioned 2 things are not true in the way I mentioned(and has same betting structure, rounds,... as for example: No limit Holdem).

2 FACTS why Nil Poker is more skill based than poker(52-card deck):
- more cards
- larger equity gaps between hands.

There aren't "more" cards, there are just extra cards that don't do anything except dilute the hand values. What if you added a million blanks, would that give it more skill?

Stop presenting your hypothesis as "fact". You're totally welcome to discuss the game as long as you don't go around claiming nonsense as fact without backing it up. The whole reason people "troll" your thread is because you make claims that are not backed up so stop doing that.

Hello, RustyBrooks.

Your theory about »evolution of every game in the same way« is wrong(same amount of flops, same amount of rake after some time,«premium hands«..), because of added nil cards. I actually owe some readers oppologies because I thought your theory was right(and I wrote some things that included your theory in other thread). Some poster told you(next post to your theory(the first time you mentioned it) where you are wrong very good(and to tell the truth, he is probably top 3 smart people with whom I talked here; I did not see him on this forum for a while, I hope he is fine).

This sentence is 100 percent wrong. Reducing or eliminating passing money back and forth reduce amount of rake paid by players in some time in general.

Example:

Two people are playing poker: they send money back and forth 1 time(2 hands played;the hand is not important in this case):two hands allin: each one wins one hand. If rake is 5% and they have 100 dollars each, after one back and forth they both have 95 dollars. If those 2 people would not be allin they would not make that big amount of rake. How is this not reduced money(and increase of amount of rake: if they would not send money back and forth they would both close to 100 dollars each)? If money goes back and forth more times,this means they will make even bigger amount of rake and they will have less money.
The more the game is skill-based the less money goes back and forth.

I am sorry to say but there is no added value to discussion with your scenarios. I can write 100 more scenarios like yours, but this has nothing to do with anything that I wrote about change of the amount of rake paid after some hands played. If people will play Nil Poker instead of poker(52-card deck) the rake will still be 5%. It will not be changed to 6%. But the amount of rake players will pay after some amount of hands played will be changed, because of less bad-beats, more skills,…
I believe your assumptions are as good as mine(about who wants what), when we are talking about assumptions without facts behind(I know I said in the past that losers will probably lose faster at nil poker vs poker, but i can say that this was my assumption, without any facts based behind(for now);I understand how assumptions are not theory material)- not good. I promised you that I will not write assumptions anymore, if there are not solid facts behind.


I have wrote only FACTS. Feel free to disapprove any of them.

I hope that now you understand how hard it is to discuss some new poker variant that has no stats yet(and that I am not making stuff up).

Thank you for your post.

Why don't you try math?

Maybe he's right, maybe not. But I don't think there's that much doubt that preflop shove ranges will adjust to be fairly similar to traditional holdem. It might be interesting to do some preflop sims for nil poker because I'm a little curious about preflop equity matchups for various ranges.

You have to prove that the situations would be different in nil poker, you have not done so.

I agree with this - to an extent. However, games with these properties are typically not played by millions of people for large amounts of money, for a good reason. [ETA: I agree that the money doesn't go back and forth - it goes more in one direction. This by itself does not prove less rake, because the bad player can still play every hand if he wants. Maybe the good player wins more often, but the rake is still paid]

Proving that the game has fewer allins, or even just fewer big hands, would go a long way to illustrating that people would pay less rake. However, I don't see such a linkage between "less bad beats and more skill" to "less rake". Less bad beats and more skill might just mean that money flows more in one direction than the other, which might be nice for the player it flows to, but will not affect rake.

Perhaps. But you are the one making claims about what your game does and doesn't do - the burden of proof is on you to prove that your assumptions are correct, or at a minimum, that mine and other's are false.

Your definition of facts does not match mine. At the most I have seen you post some logical deduction based on assumptions. I don't agree with most of the assumptions and I don't agree with some of the deductions. But that's somewhat beside the point - even if I agreed with both, I would not consider them "facts" but rather just "arguments" or "suppositions"

I agree. But I also think you're approaching game design as a public relations exercise, rather than a game theoretical one. Which is... fine. Most of the poker games we play today were not "designed" as such, they were variations made on existing games. The good variations flourished, the bad ones died out (although good and bad are probably the wrong terms here... many games that are popular are not good and vice versa)

Hello, RustyBrooks.

Thank you for writting your post. I am glad you wrote this post, so I can see some things from different angles. It sure helps me a lot(and I think others too). Anyway, I will wrote back when I will have better arguments (with some math data behind; than I have at the moment), regarding things you wrote.

For now I would just like to add more stats:

Odds of having KK or AA as hole cards are(at poker):0,91 %
Odds of having QQ, KK or AA as hole cards are(at Nil Poker):0,87%
Odds of having KK or AA as hole cards are(at Nil Poker):0,58%

I have to correct this post. I made some wrong calculations here(bug). But the conclusion is this the same. If the mentioned thing will happened: one time back and forth: both players will have 10 dollars less(and not 5 dollars as I mentioned)- assuming they will rebuy to 100 dollars when they lose allin.

This post(mine) has not got enough of information(or data) to be considered good. This was the most basic example.

I have to write additions to examples: In the above post person B is more skill-based player than person A. So in his opinion »good preflop(allin material)« hands are AA and KK. Person A´s »good preflop(allin material)« hands are AA,KK, QQ. Generaly speaking if some game is considered more skill-based then the other, the better preflop selections good players made(because they can: bigger gap between hands). So person B will have less bad beats, because he is better player(and everything will be seen one the amount of rake players pay). I will add some more stats(or at least better data) that will backup this some other time and maybe I will have to correct something, with this post too. Additional analyze will show this. But conclusion will still be the same.

Anyway, Lego05, please wait some more time for the answer to your question.

Hello people, I am doing some calculations. I have some questions.

1.Is there any way to calculate the odds for split-pots in some particular poker variant(for example texas holdem)- before cards are dealt? For example if game is 9max, what are the odds there will be split-pot if 3 people go to showdown?

2.What are the odds for split-pots in general between games - for example: sixplus holdem vs texas holdem?At which game there will be the most split-pots? Or at least what do you expect and why?

Thank you.

I don't know that there's really a way to "calculate" it. If I was doing it, I'd just count them. The answer is also going to depend on the parameters you set. Like... do you just deal hands to the players and then deal out the boards? Do you assume players have top N% hands and that X% of these go to showdown? And so forth.

I have a gut feeling that nil cards will cause less splits, especially if you stipulate that the players are not going to start with nil cards in their hands. The
Consider a board like
A 8 2 N N
A7 is going to beat A6 A5 A4 A3 but on
A 8 2 K T
both players have AAKT8
That is there will be a smaller chance for "counterfeiting" cards to come. Same will happen when, for example, a player has a flush or straight with 1 card from his hand - there will be a smaller chance that the river will make a better flush or straight on the board. I would not expect this kind of counterfeiting to be very common though.

For 3 players, there are going to be a total of 2+2+2+5 cards dealt from your deck - that's 65 choose 11 or about 895 billion total runouts. That's a pretty big set to chew through but you could probably get a decent idea by randomly running out 1% of those, I think, which should be pretty doable.

Hello RustyBrooks,thank you for your post. I believe it has great added value to discussion and it helps me a lot.

PROOF, that Nil Poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck).

Anyway, I was talking to some people. And they all say that next example is enough of proof that Nil poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck) – without any hands played with real players. I have to state again that I gave next example that proofs my statement at the begging when I mentioned nil poker.

Example:

Two persons are playing poker. 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).

There is not one poker game on planet earth at which in some situations good players vs less skill players will make more money(situation mentioned above) at more skill-based game vs less skill-based game, and at some other situation between same games, good players vs less skill-based players will make less money.This is how poker games works(for example: deck of cards does not change after flop;games with same betting rounds, same no. of hole cards,…).

I am claming this to be enough of evidence that Nil Poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck). If you are thinking different than please show me one game vs other that this would not be true. As I give you proof on example, you are feel free to prove my statement is wrong with example(If I am not right, it would be very easy to proof that I am wrong).

I also wrote a lot about Nil Poker that I consider added value to the above mentioned proof.

I can not tell you how obvious it is for me than Nil Poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck) – and it will be like the easiest way to add some proofs(but the mentioned example is good enough proof anyway) when(if) new poker variant will be played with real players.

I have to ask you again(if nobody will answer I would assume you agree with me). Is Nil Poker more skill-based than poker(52-card deck). I am not asking this because I am not sure of this, but because I want to see with what kind of people I am talking here(trolling posters does not matter at this opinion).I do believe this community is one of the smartest on the internet.

INTELLIGENT MATH PROBLEM:

Because I think that you like hard math problems(I do too;i think this is like "einstein math problem"), I think that you will like this problem. How do adding of no. of nil cards(added to standard 52-card deck) change skill-based poker game(asuming there is Nil Quads combination).Why? I think this is allmost impossible to figure it out. I think it has also something to do with with odds for the split pots, split pots vs rake- but I am not sure.

I think that it helps if you are concluding(aprox. calculations) from this example(my previous post):Two persons are playing poker. 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).........

I believe graph goes something like this:


I would really like to hear what do you think that solution to this problem is, why,...

Is there any reason whatsoever that you choose "preflop all in equity gap" as a measure of skill?

Do you have any math to back this up?

Why do you believe this? Do you have any work that shows this to be true?

You can't just make stuff up and then say it is "proof".

Now to be fair to him in this last instance he didn't say it was true or fact. He said this is how he believes it to be and what our opinion is.

Of course we don't get to see any reasoning behind why any of this might be the case but I suspect that is not going to change.

edit: never mind he said it was "evidence"

Mine example(proof) is not »preflop all in equity gap«!. There are a lot of other things in the equation(not only »preflop all in equity gap«) in example. I will not even try to explain which things are in this equation (does not matter which), because basically this does not change the value of proof with this example(if you read post). I have gave the same example of this, when I mentioned Nil Poker for the first time.

Some people here equaled my example with preflop all in equity gap, so I assumed we are thinking the same thing(which is clearly wrong; my example and preflop all in equity gap is not the same) – and this is also reason why I mentioned facts how to determine skill-basad games(post no. 80)- I have to state again this happens because I was assuming you would understand my example and that my example is not »preflop all in equity gap«! (so this post no. 80 is probably not exactly correct, but example is good proof(post no. 91)).

I do not know if you people here are trying to confuse me on purpuse or by mistake, but I hope that you understand that I will sooner or later figure it out how to calculate all the facts behind Nil Poker(as I did now; this is also reason why I do not answer trolling posters).

I think this is how the curve would look like(graph; just the curve(look of the curve) part; i am not saying that high peak will be at 13 and I am not saying that after adding 100 nil cards this would mean the same skill-based poker game as poker without nil cards).

My opinion is that curve will go up if we add certain amount of nil cards to standard deck(from the example(post no. 91): if we add certain amount of nil cards this makes skill-based card game go up). And at some number of nil cards added to standard deck, this curve will start falling(if we go from example(post no. 91) and if we add for example 1000 nil cards to deck I think that there would be a lot of splits(basically Nil Quads would be the best hand allmost every showdown); person B would not have a lot of advantage with his preflop selection vs person A: so less skill-based game again). Anyway I think it is allmost impossible to pick high peak of this curve(maybe it is not at 13 nil cards). There are probably some other things to add to equasion(but I do not know which).

I believe you like hard math problems, so I think you will like this problem.

I would really like to hear what do you think that solution to this problem is, why,...

This is why people have problems with your posts. These things aren't matters of opinion. You are the one making the claim "most skill-based" so it is incumbent on you to provide the data to back up your claim.

“This is THE MOST SKILL-BASED CARD GAME EVER.”

This is the first line of this thread posted 2.5 months ago. I find it incredible that it has lasted this long and admit I am guilty of having contributed to it fairly recently.

I have said that it was my mistake writting about "the most skill-based card game ever."I admit my mistake.

I have just prove to you today, that nil poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck)- as a holdem(at least). And how good is that? I believe most of you did not know how to do that, until today. I would expect that you would be thankfull. And to be honest with you people, I believe I can add a lot more to this discussion(currently calculating things regarding graph(post no. 92))...