For everybody that reads this. Please write your opinions, thoughts,… on nil poker. The more people that shares their opinions on nil poker, the more it helps me.Also if i forgot to answer some question in the posts please write it again, but i think i wrote answers to every question or opinion(and explained it well too). Thank you.

I would argue it changes things in the wrong way.

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.")

Is this just a clever troll?

Just because you said it's the most skilled based card game doesn't make it true.

This is basically what happens. If you have equity discrepancy as a function of nil cards with 0 being standard NLHE, if you go to infinity you will end up with basically high carding where equity is either 0%, 50% or 100%. Assuming the function keeps going up means that 13 blanks should increase the gap between good and bad hands. Having a blank in your hand basically reduces your hand to junk and with less community cards your junk has less cards to catch up to a made hand.

Also the total amount of combinations goes way up so I'm not quite sure what that does to ranges because they are going to be more polarized. I just don't get what makes this more "skill" than all the other card games that OP says.

Well I can see how it increases our edge over gambly players who get it in with weak draws and such, problem is that last thing they want to do it is play a game which is even more boring than NLHE. Come to that, nor do I. It's no coincidence that every common NLHE variant involves bigger hands instead of small ones.

EDIT

No evidence provided to show this is the most skilled card game ever, so strike one. It's not even the most skilled based poker variant, something like PLO takes vastly more skills to master. Strike two. Also, and I can't emphasise this enough, it looks incredibly boring, so strike three.

OP - At some point you are going to have to recognize that there are many card games that have nothing to do with poker. Games like Bridge, Hearts, Gin, and many others have been around for years, and are very much skill based. You are saying your game is the most skill based card game ever and you don't even mention actual skill based games. All you have done is make a broad claim, then tried to give reasons why your game is more skill based than poker.

Second, let's talk about starting hands. In Holdem, you will get dealt at least one nil card more than one third of the time. In Omaha, that number goes up to 60% of the time. I would never want to play a 1 card Holdem hand, or a 3 card Omaha hand, so I'm going to be folding a large number of hands before I even have a chance to evaluate an actual 2 or 4 card hand.

So a normally tight preflop player is almost never going to play a hand in your game, and they will find this ridiculously boring. I agree that there can be a bigger skill edge in your game than in Holdem - but that has nothing to do with anything inherent in the game. The reason is that there are not a million books (or any) written about it, with all the probabilities and strategies that are out there for Holdem. So if people started playing this, someone who could do all the work and figure it out before anyone else did would have a huge advantage. I think you will find that not many people will be interested since they are already happy playing existing poker variants.

3-card plo hands would definitely be playable in some situations, just saying

But yeah, OP missing the fact that tons of card-games are pretty much purely skill based with much less variance than poker. Even something like MTG is a card game and playing a best-of-X series is gonna have less variance than thousands of poker hands.

Thank you didace for your opinion.
I understand. Everybody has his own opinion. I believe that 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,… (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(poker) that you will play the most skill-based poker game there is.

Can you point out the people that actually want to play this game?

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).

Thank you Kelvis 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 advance over the persons who does now 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 more a little more likely to miss flop, to have a little less »good hands«. So what this makes to the problem mentioned above, it requires skills to bluff. If you will miss more hands you will need to bluff more. Those added 13 nil cards also makes your hand a little more poverful(slighty less percent for other people to win better 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).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 this is more skilled then other games. Also, all the 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).
So, i think the key to your question is adding some amount of nil cards to standard deck(i think 13 is correct number; also easy to remember as 13 is the same number of cards with the same flush color). If you add more the game really becomes not playable and all the things mentioned above lose some sence.
Also, adding nil cards does not chance the winning of the hands on shodown. For example it is 50-50 percent at nil holdem and texas holdem, if HU(and so on).Also, i think a lot has been allready explained in my posts above.

Thank you WereBeer for your feedback.
The only reason people are playing poker is that it is skill-based game. 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,… (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(poker) that you will play the most skill-based poker game there is.
Please look at the all of my posts and you will find answer to all of your concerns(all 3).

Get rid of the thirteen nil cards and exchange them for 13 paragraph breaks in above posts ftw

op, are you a winning poker player? (well, you don't really need to answer that)

Thank you VBAces for your feedback.
I understand what you are trying to say. But, there is allmost zero percent chance that not skilled players will win skilled players when playing 1000 hands in nil poker (while playing games with less variance: HU, CG 6-max,…).Anyway yes, if we look really strictly it is very optimistic to say that nil poker is the most skill-based card game ever created(yes there are some card games that are in the same league as nil poker, but they are not simple to play, not widely spread and so on), but i have no problem saying nil poker is the most skill-based variant of poker ever created. I think we all agree on this one.
About second thing you mentioned. I do not think the nil poker is going to be played in the way you mentioned(tight). I think people will be playing more lose. Also, you will not be folding a lot more hands,if any, in nil poker. As probably you know poker(52-card game) is more aggresive(and lose) every year. 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(52-card game) neither)- playing nil poker vs at least average skilled players(sure you will play tight vs super gamblers: but this is rare case)…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 at nil poker… 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… you can expect it to be boring as they play a lot of 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.
Also about the zero books that are written for playing nil poker. This is not true. One of the best things at Nil Poker is that all these books that are written for improving skills at poker (52-card deck) are even more valuable at Nil Poker (as mentioned before experienced players have bigger advantage over less experienced players in Nil Poker). Added Nil Cards only change the outcome of winning cards from 5 to 10 percent (depends on the cards and hands). This percent is changed in the way that good hand in poker(52-card deck) becomes even better in nil poker. So, if you are good and you have read all the books about poker(52-card deck) you have even bigger advantage in nil poker. 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 even worse in nil holdemr(around 26 percent to complte draw).And the same goes for all the things( how to be aggressive,…)

Thank you Duncelanas for your feedback.

I understand what you are trying to say. But, there is allmost zero percent chance that not skilled players will win skilled players when playing 1000 hands in nil poker (while playing games with less variance: HU, CG 6-max,…).Anyway yes, if we look really strictly it is very optimistic to say that nil poker is the most skill-based card game ever created(yes there are some card games that are in the same league as nil poker, but they are not simple to play, not widely spread and so on,...), but i have no problem saying nil poker is the most skill-based variant of poker ever created. I think we all agree on this one.

HOW I THINK NIL POKER IS GOING TO BE PLAYED - AGGRESSIVE
I believe the way to win at nil poker is to play aggressive(tight players are not making money in general 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....

To conclude... I think optimal play in nil poker is VERY AGGRESSIVE...

I would like to hear everybody´s opinion on how you think this game is going to be played? I believe it is not going to be boring and the optimal play will not be tight, because of all the reasons I mentioned in the above posts. Please write your opinions, thoughts,... The more people that shares their opinions on nil poker, the more it helps me. Thank you.

Nil poker almost as stupid as nil paragraphs

Yeah but that's only because they always suck out on the river.

I'm pretty sure you have read all of the posts in this thread. I'm not sure I've read anyone except you say that it is most skill-based variant ever created, so I don't really know how you can say "I think we all agree on this one".

You're wrong.

1. To start with, extra dead cards =/= most skills based.

2. If everyone who plays poker just wanted to play the most skills based game in casinos, they'd play chess.

3. There are lots of poker variants, the reason none of them involve adding reverse wild cards is because that would be boring as hell.

Look man, you just showed a bunch of winning poker players your game and we all hate the idea. If we don't want to play this, there is nil chance the average recreational player wants to.

Is this game substantially different than any other poker variant, or is it a transparent attempt to create a came, using a different deck so that the game can be copy righted or considered new IP, and try to capitalize on poker's popularity (see the only other threads started by OP)

I see no significant improvements from adding cards to the deck. I see no indication that it makes the game more skill based. I am not even sure why you want a game to be more explicitly skill based. I always thought you wanted people to believe that there was huge amount of luck involved, so that they would play even when they were less experienced than other players.

Quit trying to scam a quick buck by rubbing the serial numbers off of poker and then trying to claim you made a new game.