I came across this concept totally by accident. It's very simple, but I think it's worth your time to think of it. As far as I'm concerned, it's super interesting:


>>>> (NLHE) What would happen if not only the players but also the dealer looked at all hole cards and had the ability to decide every time what action the particular player must do. Of course every single action would have to be APPROVED by this player first, before being executed. If a player disapproves, the whole hand is cancelled and players get their chips back. If it's approved until the end, it counts as a normal real money NLHE hand. Players never make actions by themselves.


So even if the dealer was cheating, you approved all the actions you made and the hand was played from your perspective just as if you were playing it on your own. So you can't blame him. Besides, all cards were dealt randomly.

Also, I think the better the dealer can play poker, the bigger the chance for the whole hand being approved by all players (and raked).

Am I right with this ? If you don't like to post often, just hit the like button below if you think it's interesting.

Players will nut peddle until the river, then the player who has anything but the nuts will choose to cancel the entire hand and everyone gets the chips back. Unless there is a completely clueless player who does not understand the rules and, preferably, also sucks at normal poker, this game won't run.

No incentive to play anything theoretical sound, as anything in your range that is close, or not even that close lol, will be losing in EV vs just cancelling the entire hand and moving on.

Hmmm, ok thanks for the post. I think the main problem is that the optimal strategy is to always disagree with FOLD and get your chips back then. But some additional rule might fix this problem, I think.

And in other situations, I'm not so sure if it's still unplayable, but I'm trying to fully understand your post now, so that I can agree and look for a solution maybe.

what is your weird fascination with having the dealers play on behalf of players?

It's probably because when designing new poker I've searched everywhere, except for the dealer's perspective. Dealer is an important part of live game, but also opens a lot of new rules that can be applied.

Thought a little bit more about your game. What are the dealer incentives? If it is rake, and he knows everyones hole cards, he plays honest, which in this game is always bet/call/fold mindful of equity/pot odds, then at the river always folding the losing hand because it is always 100/0 equity. I think this game played perfectly should always be breakeven, and it should be the most profitable way for the dealer/casino as it slowly but surely bleed everyone out of their money with the rake. Also, the variance might keep everyone with a gambler mood entertained.

A live game can have to dealer be a player or be a robot. The dealer is an unimportant part of actual game-play.

It can't be a player under OP's rules, the dealer would then be a superuser

I think the dealer's incentive is the rake indeed. The dealer shouldn't perfectly follow % odds, he should rather concentrate on a current player perspective like he didn't know remaining players hole cards. Only then it will be 100% honest, I think. This would make players approve his decisions until the end. He would have to be a really good poker player himself / herself.

The problem is approving the FOLD, I still have to find some rule to fix this. I mean, pre-flop fold to BB is ok, but on later streets it will cause problems.

What do you mean by "this game played perfectly" ?

E.g. 3 handed, BTN has AdAc, SB has 7h2c, BB has KhKs. 100 bb deep. BTN should limp (raising would make SB fold obv, and BB wouldn't have the odds to call). He limps, SB still folds, BB checks.

"BB wouldn't have the odds to call" - but he doesn't know about it. The dealer should act like he didn't know that either. So BTN should raise. I don't know if it's still "a perfect game" but it's the way it should be played.

So if I am the dealer: BTN raises 3x, SB folds, BB re-raises, BTN goes all-in, BB calls

And I can't override the dealer decision by choosing another action, only accept or leave the hand and have my chips returned? Unplayable, I can't even wait for AA as I will blind to death, I wouldn't sit in a game like this, sorry

check out the other dealer inspired threads he's made

Sometimes, the most precious stones can be found among dust, soil and rocks.

in all seriousness, i'm very supportive of your work to try to develop new games of poker

i think it would be really awesome if you invented a new variant that became popular


but... in your quest to find a unique spin, you make the games unplayable

every game you design requires the players to be absolutely braindead in order to consider playing

you continually design games where the optimal strategy is not to play - your other game made it not about raising and calling but rather about making unmatched donations - thus no player would ever voluntarily be the sole person to add chips to a pot, even if they win the pot, it still doesn't benefit them, they are only getting their chips back

now you have a new game where people can cancel the entire hand and get refunded at any point in the play, which means anyone in the blinds will cancel the second they get a bad hand, or anyone folding on river (there will never be a call on the river, only betting or folding and no bluffs would ever be made in this game) so then the player who folds could just say "i don't agree" and the hand gets canceled and all refunds are given

in your quest to come up with a new variant, you make the games unplayable, you're thinking too much about "what would be an interesting new aspect of the game" when you should be thinking "would any intelligent person ever play this game?"

Make the game more fun. Let's say at any point in a hand a player who thinks he's getting screwed by the dealer may call BS. The other(s) either agree or disagree. If every player in the hand agree with the BS, the hand ends and everyone gets their chips back. If only one (in HU) or 2 3-way etc agrees, the hole cards are turned over. If the player who called BS is right, he (they) gets the full pot + the dealer pay their actual equities. If he is wrong, he loses the full pot and has to pay the winner(s) equity. Not sure if there is any possibility of getting an edge, or if my rules need some tuning, but looks a fun game to play once in a while for me

Well, I was just thinking that it would be spectacular to see a bluff made by the dealer, approved by player and folded by other player. It would be like seeing two or more perspectives in one person (dealer). I still think it might be cool.

Give me some time, I need to fix that "approve FOLD" issue first. It's not easy, trust me. I must find an extra rule to balance this.

Usually, I fully realize all problems with a certain game soon after posting the rules here. I can quickly forget about a game I designed, but the threads just stay here as any other threads. I'm fully aware what a new game should have, but my main purpose is to make a poker game that's based on some sort of a "discovery" or "totally new thing". And those can sometimes seem absurd. But it would be a solid base of the game. Other ideas that can be named as "normal" just lead nowhere.

You see all those issues and flaws immediately, because you are active players who play poker. I play poker only against AI since real money poker is illegal in my country. But I'm constantly learning, it's just not easy to properly handle all the knowledge I gained throughout all these years

one word

collusion - nobody would ever trust the dealer was operating without bias - especially since they can funnel money to whomever they want once they are allowed to bluff and then incorrectly fold the winning hand

But the folding player would have to first give approval to this FOLD, so it would be eventually his fault. You can't blame the dealer for the incorrect play.

Yeah, there's a ton of those fun poker games out there, but they aim mostly at home games where friends play and drink together to have some fun and win or lose a few bucks.

dude... you fundamentally do not understand how quickly unsavory people will start colluding in this game

Poker doesn't work if the aim is to be "spectacular" for an observer.

But it must be spectacular for all players at the table. NLHE odds are very unpredictable and spectacular themselves, I would say. Math can be spectacular, too So if something is spectacular in poker, it must represent math phenomenon of some kind.

I didn't like this game at all, as I'm sure is the case with everyone who posted here.

Devising new games is always a good activity, and if you ever strike an actual good idea, I'm confident you'll get people playing it, maybe it will even surpass NL, PLO etc. So, don't get discouraged please.

In this particular subforum I'm sure you'll get more activity, and people thinking you're a troll will happen less, if you use your posting energies to post actual NL or other formats strategy, trying to innovate something or whatever. Even if it's very likely your idea will be disproved, at least it is a more interesting discussion and more in line with (what I think is) the purpose of a Poker Theory forum. Assuming you're actually smart and will think deeply about your ideas before posting.

This should fix all the issues: