Ok, so, if you really want to eliminate any luck aspect of the game, and make it a real skill game ( as close as you can get) this is what i think the game should be played:

1) You must use both of your hole cards in order to make a hand.

2) There is no preflop action. Every player puts an ante and action starts on flop. Position/turn to act are still the same. So there are only three streets now.

3) When a player is all in, he plays the street that he is all in. If player A shoves flop, player B and C calls, player B and C keep playing for the side pot, but player A only plays his five card combination on flop.
If just two players are all in, the action ends on that whatever street they are.

Just applying only one of the steps above makes the game more skill based.

This would make the game more a "Poker" game.

"Poker" for me, is the ability to size power on weakest opponents. The more clever/skilled you are, the more money you can gain, the more profitable you become.

"Poker" for me is about inducing your oponnent to make a mistake. To induce them to tilt, but not to the point of desperation..

Is about "what is he thinking that i could be thinking.." etc.

Poker could be a great game in the future, but the "gambling" element must be reduced drastically.

-

And yes, shoving draws has no value (other than, a stone cold bluff)
The ability to abuse shorter stacks when you have a big stack on tourneys is reduced for obvious reasons...you name it. Everything has its cons



And here is the main "con", or counter-argument iv'e seen most whenever someone wants to make the game more skill based:

"Fish won't play"

"You have to have a little gamble, or you won't be able to attract fish" etc


Which i don't think it's totally true. A real "fish" or "casual" would play whatever is "trending". They just follow the herd

1) Hold em where you must use both hole cards is known as Greek hold em.
2) Everyone seeing the flop creates protected pots where you need a much stronger hand to bet or call a bet.
3) This eliminates the concept of semibluffing, decreasing the skill in the game.

I think the game you want is no-limit single-draw lowball.

what did I just read

A terrible, terrible idea.

And here is the main "con", or counter-argument iv'e seen most whenever someone wants to make the game more skill based:

"Fish won't play"

"You have to have a little gamble, or you won't be able to attract fish" etc


Which i don't think it's totally true. A real "fish" or "casual" would play whatever is "trending". They just follow the herd



Chess is played by millions of people around the world and the majority of players are terrible. It is pure skill and even allows the option of near infinite handicappings, yet there is still no significant sums ever wagered by the "fish."

Why, oh why?

Isn't the Skill to know how to handle the Luck and Variance in this Game of Chance? If we reduce any Luck Factor, we just count Preflop and no Board is dealt.The Skill then is to wait for a Pair strong enough accordingly to the Number of Players at the Table to go ai pf and be profitable in the long run. Showdown and % can't change no more.
So the Skill would be to be lucky to get good cards?
I don't know, Poker, the Game where it is about to make a Hand, needs "Luck" involved cause to know how to handle this Luck and Variance,probabilites and make them profitable and work for you, thats the skill in it.

"If there was no Luck involved, I would win every Hand" (cause PHs better Hands wouldn't get sucked out) But how does that make any sense.
Dont you have to be lucky in the first place to get a good Hand?

"Duplicate Poker"was a site that launched about 10 years ago. The apparent intent was to eliminate chance, create a skill-based version of holdem poker, and by doing so, make a gazillion $$$ in the vacuum that was the US legal online poker market.

It failed, unsurprisingly.

Unfortunately, I heard the other day that someone is preparing to again try the same idea, players competing by playing a series of the same hands.I guess the aim is the same. I think the outcome will be also.

Trust me NLHE already is a game of skill. No one could lose as frequently as I do solely because of bad luck. Luck deals you cards, what you do is skill-based. I know good luck does not mean a player will win, even over the short term I can screw up cards that should have sent me home a winner. Luck doesn't size your bets, induce bad play from opponents, select how to play against player A, B, or C, make you call against a board showing a pair v. fold your medium flush , etc.

Exactly what I was going to write.

Recs aren't as clueless as OP assumes. They aren't going to keep pumping money into a hobby/addiction when there's little or no positive feedback. If I could make a change it would be to add more variance to SHNL.

Sounds like a boring game

Why would anyone want to do this?

I know that I dont know....but please elaborate why I am wrong

3) When a player is all in, he plays the street that he is all in. If player A shoves flop, player B and C calls, player B and C keep playing for the side pot, but player A only plays his five card combination on flop.
If just two players are all in, the action ends on that whatever street they are.

Worst thing ive ever heard including doc telling me i have aids

lol tldr but i will promote it bro, anything for the skill games bro

I like how this "more skill-based NLHE" eliminates like half the skill of NLHE.

Why don't we all just play tic-tac-toe for rollz.

You have to understand that even if a game is 99% luck and 1% skill, that just means that in the long run, it's actually 100% skill.

The element of luck and randomness in poker is what makes the game great, and what makes the game something people will gamble on.

How about this rule:

1) Cant win with runner runner or less than 2% when all in.

No. Quit trying to ruin the Cadillac. Suckouts are part of life, just use bankroll management and learn to deal with them. Can't deal with 2% adversity, find a different hobby.

Without those suckouts, I wouldn't get to laugh when it happens to an entitled reg who then proceeds to whine and go on a tilt-tantrum (which is profitable for me). As a bonus, those suckouts transfer chips to the fish, who then has more to give to me (unless he sucks out on me too, but I'd rather him go for that than be discouraged by your proposed rule).

Fold pre.

Just when I thought NVG couldn't get any dumber.

Nothing in OP reduces "luck" and variance is the reason losers are willing to keep losing at poker. Nobody plays chess, pool, backgammon, or golf vs randoms for money anymore.

edit: and the number 3 -- all in ends your action at that street rule is just a joke. "I bet stack - 1 (or -2 etc)" If one player is all in does the other player get to see a turn etc.

Is OP bummed that "Protection Poker" isn't sweeping the nation?

This would take so much of the suspense and excitement out of things. Specifically live, where tables get loud and fun when someone gets beat on a suckout or runner runner, etc.

Also, we wouldn't get to see someone get bad beat and go on monkey tilt. Preventing that is half the battle sometimes. Let's keep things the way they. Let's be honest, NLHE will be king for a long time and i don't see any big rule changes coming soon.