Quote:
Originally Posted by tombos21
This doesn't resolve the issues, and it removes almost all player decision-making. There's no skill edge or enjoyment left. It's also extremely prone to the dealer's mood. I don't see any reason why you'd want to have the dealer making player decisions. I don't understand how or why that is an improvement over regular poker.
But ok, if you really want to force this concept to work, all you need to do is amend the original rules such that you can't "cancel". The dealer will suggest an action, and the player can either agree or fold.
Any poker mechanic that lets people play without committing to the risk of losing the money they've already put in is 100% doomed to fail. This was the problem with your last dozen games or so.
Let's focus on the dealer's mood you mentioned. The dealer's mood is:
"I want to collect as much rake as possible and never collude with players, so that I can be seen as a good dealer, I won't lose my job and maybe I'll get some bonus in the future from the casino owner." To do that (precisely - to collect more rake), the dealer will have to conduct
EVERY HAND in a way so that the first phase ends with a reasonable All-in play that will be APPROVED by the player. Only then he can collect the rake. Of course the All-in is mandatory in each hand according to the new rules. So, this means that in the first (conducted) phase, dealer will play the hand in a way to build the pot as big as possible and let the
player with the best hand at that moment to go All-in. He can also bluff, but he can't do this too often.
This means that the potential caller(s) will very often face a difficult decision, since the All-in will look super strong every time. You may say that it's not good for the game to force players to do particular actions, but the dealer has to follow a certain path of thinking. He can't do anything he wants, it's purely theoretical.
There might be some bias connected to the dealer's will, but he conducts every hand only to a certain point.
As far as theoretically possible collusion with any of the players, to be successful it would have to be:
- undetectable
- always profitable
And both of those will fail, because it would be relatively easy to detect (or maybe even outplay when detected) and it will never guarantee profits (if undetectable). Plus, it would be super difficult to do physically (tells).
Letting the dealer play so that it makes sense would definitely be an improvement for the game, because you never see stuff like this happen at the table. It would attract a lot of people to the game.