"PHASE FIVE"
New game containing alternate betting rules, 52 card deck, based on Texas Hold'em, heads-up only. This version is strategically much more complex than the previous version (!!). Please check it out and post a comment or like / dislike this post.


GAME CARD STRUCTURE:
([Phase 1 - 4], X - face up, X - face down)

XXXX XXXX
XP1X XP1X
XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XP1X XP1X XP2X XP3X XP4X
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX
XP1X XP1X
XXXX XXXX


Phase 1 - Player A chooses any 6 cards that he wants from the deck and arranges them FACE UP on the table as 2 - 2 - 2 (hole cards A - two flop cards - hole cards B).

Phase 2 - The deck is shuffled and the flop card is dealt FACE DOWN. Player A peeks at the card and decides how much $ he will donate to build the pot.

Phase 3 - The turn card is dealt FACE DOWN. Player A peeks at the card and decides how much $ will Player B have to donate to see the showdown.

Phase 4 - The river card is dealt FACE DOWN. Player A peeks at the card and decides which 2 of the 3 cards he wants to expose FACE UP.

Phase 5 - Player B has to make the decision whether he wants to continue or not. If he wants to continue - he donates the demanded amount $ to the pot and the last 5th community card is exposed FACE UP. Winner of the showdown wins the whole pot. If it's a tie, donations go back to the players and nobody makes any profit. If Player B doesn't want to continue, the hand is over and nobody makes any profit.


HAND EXAMPLE 01:

Stacks:
Player A - 4000 $
Player B - 6000 $

Phase 1 - Player A chooses 6 cards from the deck and arranges them face up on the table:

Hole cards A - [Q J]
Two flop cards - [9 3]
Hole cards B - [8 8]

Phase 2 - The flop card is dealt face down [[A]]. Player A peeks at the card and donates 1500 $ to build the pot.

Phase 3 - The turn card is dealt face down [[J]]. Player A peeks at the card and demands 2200 $ from player B for the showdown.

Phase 4 - The river card is dealt face down [[8]]. Player A peeks at the card and decides to expose the turn card [J] and the river card [8] face up.

Phase 5 - Player B decides he WILL continue and donates 2200 $ to the pot. The last 5th community card [A] is exposed face up.

RESULT: Player A (-1500 $) / Player B (+1500 $)

This game is strategically busted.

Choosing the cards is problematic. You could just always give yourself quads. For example, AsAd AcAh KsKd. KK is drawing dead. Randomize these cards.

This mechanic is completely busted. You need to force a minimum donation to fix it.

Player A should simply never donate anything on the turn (unless they can't lose). They're increasing their opponent's EV in the pot for no reason. You can argue some metagame trickery, but Player B always has the option to fold everything except the invulnerable nuts on the river because it costs nothing to wait. It's the same logic behind a poker game without blinds will lead to only playing AA. No forced bets mean no incentive to play anything but the nuts.

---

Side note - the definition of a "hole card" is that it's face down. I suggest using a different word.

@ tombos21 - Thanks for the comment, I'm glad someone responded. I really appreciate it although I mostly disagree, here's why:

1. Choosing 6 cards freely does give you a chance to give yourself a much better hand like mentioned quads, but there's no point in doing it because your goal is to earn something. There's no mandatory donation from BOTH players like blinds or antes and there's no stealing or folding. You would only discourage the opponent and he would never continue. The game would become stale and nobody would make any profit. Your goal is to prove that you're a better player and that you use the strategy wisely to stay secure from your theoretically possible loss. I will even say that you have to arrange those 6 cards so the drawing dead situation is least likely to happen as possible. The game gives you an opportunity to make a wise "selling" transaction and if you're unlucky - to defend the pot properly.

Randomizing 6 cards won't do anything good. You want the odds in phase 1 to be like 40/60%, 35/65% or 50/50% pretty much all the time to make some action.

2. Forcing a minimum donation from player A is indeed pretty obvious - I didn't mention this rule because I wanted to keep the post as simple as possible. The maximum buy-in would have to be set also, so I just didn't know yet what those numbers should be. That's why I skipped this rule. So of course you're right on this one. I agree - mandatory minimum donation from player A (on the flop) is a must here.

3. Player A is donating on the flop, not on the turn - like you said. On the turn he sets the size of the demanded donation from player B for the showdown instead.

4. Your attitude towards the strategy looks a bit to me like you would make your decision (as player B) based only on your current odds, pot size and demanded donation size. It's not a good strategy. You have to read your opponent's actions and count cards for exclusion to change your "official odds". Only then you'll win with a good player. Of course you can wait for the nuts and play it (for some small but constant profit), but what will you do when you're player A ?

5. I used the name "hole cards" so that people who read it remember that the game is based on Texas Hold'em. But of course this can be changed.

Sorry if I'm writing a lot, but I wanted to explain everything with details. It looks to me like you don't trust the game that it has a deeper strategy. I assure you that it does. I'll talk about that later - I'm still learning it. And finally - why not make a faster profit, why wait for safe situations only ? I'm sure you will win more if you learn the strategy deeply and become good at it.

Yes, but what will you do if you play against me and I always use (as player A) the same set-up over and over again - a set-up which is secured from the drawing dead situation before revealing the 5th card ? Will you wait endlessly for the nuts that will never come ? No It's simple as that.

The problem with your game is that there's no skill edge. Here's an easy strategy you could use to beat/tie any player or bot in the world.

1) As player A - always ensure player B is drawing dead. That means my EV is 0 or greater.
2) As player B - never call without the invulnerable nuts. It costs nothing to wait, so my EV is 0 or greater.

This is an unexploitable GTO strategy that guarantees your opponent can't win. And it's boring AF. Now sure, if your opponent is a fool giving me equity and donating more than the minimum then I can exploit them for a +EV gain. But my strategy should never be less than 0EV.

Your game might be fine for a fun homegame with friends. But it has no hopes of being played at a serious level since the rules are broken. If you randomize the cards and force a min donation (blind) then it works. Note that player A should NEVER donate more than the minimum in theory.

This 6 card set-up is "100% drawing dead proof" no matter what cards come. I will always use it when I'm player A and you're player B (because I already know your safe strategy):

Hole cards A [Q J]
Two flop cards [9 3]
Hole cards B [8 8]

1. You will never make any profit as player B.
2. You will never make any profit as player A.

The question is - why do you ever want to play with me if you can only make "0" profit with your perfect GTO strategy against me ?

I think sooner or later you will donate as player B to see the showdown. That's why I will donate and build a pot - to encourage you using "official odds" and possibly lure you into a trap for example. This scenario is more likely to happen than the one with sitting and doing nothing. I can't see any other way of exploiting my "fool strategy". If I play smart, I'll be the one who will be more likely to win.

I don't; that's my point. Your rules encourage that boring strategy. If you randomize the cards that problem goes away.


Sure, you could make a mistake, praying to loosen up your opponent. But this is exploitable as player B is under no obligation to bluff-catch. Player B can play as tight as they want without consequences, just nut-peddling for the win.

Looks like "Phase Five" is more of a trade game based on poker. Trading transactions have their own rules and often end up with zero profit on both sides - and that's nothing bad (when the price is too high or when the quality is too low). Maybe it's for traders, not for poker players. Maybe it stands against GTO - proving that it only leads to zero profit. I know one thing for sure - it's not just a home game.

There was a time when there was no GTO in poker, and many people will agree that poker was more fun to watch then. Just a tiny example that GTO is not perfect.

As a game developer you'd benefit from learning basic principles of game theory because you can rule out mechanics that simply don't work.

Example 1: "donating" extra money to the pot for no reason is just a completely busted mechanic. You should never do this.

Example 2: The player that's forced to put in money is always at a disadvantage.

For example, in 6max cash your winrate on the BTN should always be higher than on the BB. And if it's not, you can just play tighter and tighter until it is because folding pre costs nothing on the BTN. The same logic applies to your game. Player B always has the edge because they don't have to put money in. B can just play tighter and tighter without consequence until their winrate is greater than or equal to player A's. The only way to mitigate that edge is ensure B has no equity.

The funny thing is I'm starting to understand your point of view, but at the same time I think that my way of thinking is on the right track. Donations by player A indeed seem stupid at first and I'm aware of this, but they work the same way as advertising in trade and they may lead to a transaction which may bring big profit. From donation they become an investment just like the money spent on advertising a product - which is SHOWDOWN in this case. Player A always has some advantage because he can see all the cards and player B sees one card less. If you arrange the 6 cards correctly, make correct sizing and then choose the right 2 cards to show you can really mess up someone's way of thinking and force him to make a mistake.

If player A's advertising donation goes wrong and he's unlucky on the turn and river he can just demand an all-in donation from player B to defend the pot and eventually he'll be quite likely to discourage his opponent from continuing.

It's a little bit like "Should I make this call on the river ?" in NLHE - you consider calling not only because of what strategy tells you, but also there's something that encourages you to see the showdown and reveal the hidden information.

How ?

tombos21 ... I see you as a camouflaged GTO ninja who silently entered my headquarters to sabotage the whole facility.

What do you mean by "...until their winrate is greater than or equal to player A's" ? I mean - the winrate doesn't get higher by itself, you have to work on it. Can you please give an example of a hand or a particular situation (in general, without cards) with some numbers ?

You're a very smart guy, but there's a lot of theoretical thinking in what you say - it would be great if you can give some general examples as a proof. I'm not that fluent in theory and strategy, so maybe that's why I need them. I don't understand how are you suppose to make profit on me using GTO strategy if I use that earlier mentioned "drawing dead proof" 6 card arrangement in every hand when I'm player A. I think you can only make "0" or less, so it means GTO fails here.

And don't forget that you're player A only in hand #1, #3, #5, #7 ... you switch to player B on hands #2, #4, #6, #8 ... - you don't play as player B all the time. One hand you have that edge (that you mentioned) in other it would be me.

So you haven't actually played this game, right?

I haven't. Thankfully it's one of those games that can be analyzed without playing, because it's based on Texas Hold'em. Although I would like to play it with tombos21 to show him that my strategy is more effective than his GTO

GTO works great in NLHE and other Bet/Call/Raise/Fold poker games. There are some places though, where GTO simply doesn't work. A very good example of this is my game "Phase Five" or ... boxing:

BOXING GTO:

1. Keep your guard up 100% of time and never punch your enemy because you will open your guard then and become vulnerable, plus you'll gradually lose your stamina which may eventually lead to knocking you out.

2. Hit your opponent only when he drops his hands down as a sign of complete resignation - only then you'll get a safe chance for the knockout.


It's kind of similar thing with my game.

Do you know how boxing works? Because that would be a terrible way to attempt to win a fight.

And that's exactly what I meant.

Then it wouldn't be GTO. Unless you are Ali. The rope-a-dope worked pretty well.

By the way - how does the situation look in poker, do all the players like GTO ? Or perhaps, is there a group of players who are skeptic and don't trust it ?

This inspired me to write a poem:

"Nut-Peddling"

I'm nut peddling for the win
You are out and I am in !

I'll wait here to earn my thing
Even though there is no nuts
Faster than your eye can blink
Earning zeros is a must

The first zero gives me ten
Gives a hundred when there's two
It's a profitable trend
And my bankroll will look cool

This is how I solve "Phase Five"
There's no point in playing it
Vicious cycle in my mind
I'm your master you're my nit

Good for home game maybe two
Never will be serious thing
Go and play it with some noob
I will rather have a drink

That's the best thing you've ever posted.

This poem is a satire on what tombos21 said about my game. If you like it, it means to me that you're on my side in this "conflict". Or perhaps you only like it just as a poem ? In other words, I'd be glad to hear your brief opinion about "Phase Five". I promise I won't argue with you that much if you don't like it

It was a low bar.

Ok, thanks. I'll try to add some more bluffing flavor to the rules. I'm kind of disappointed you didn't appreciate its strategy factor (changing official odds by counting cards to exclude). But anyway, I'll keep working on a new one.

2:1 - you guys outvoted me, so now I can give up.

If you have anymore opinions or advises, let me know.