Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05
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.")
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).