Quote:
Originally Posted by blackspoker
Your theory about »evolution of every game in the same way« is wrong(same amount of flops, same amount of rake after some time,«premium hands«..), because of added nil cards. I actually owe some readers oppologies because I thought your theory was right(and I wrote some things that included your theory in other thread). Some poster told you(next post to your theory(the first time you mentioned it) where you are wrong very good(and to tell the truth, he is probably top 3 smart people with whom I talked here; I did not see him on this forum for a while, I hope he is fine).
Maybe he's right, maybe not. But I don't think there's that much doubt that preflop shove ranges will adjust to be fairly similar to traditional holdem. It might be interesting to do some preflop sims for nil poker because I'm a little curious about preflop equity matchups for various ranges.
Quote:
Two people are playing poker: they send money back and forth 1 time(2 hands played;the hand is not important in this case):two hands allin: each one wins one hand. If rake is 5% and they have 100 dollars each, after one back and forth they both have 95 dollars. If those 2 people would not be allin they would not make that big amount of rake.
You have to prove that the situations would be different in nil poker, you have not done so.
Quote:
The more the game is skill-based the less money goes back and forth.
I agree with this - to an extent. However, games with these properties are typically not played by millions of people for large amounts of money, for a good reason. [ETA: I agree that the money doesn't go back and forth - it goes more in one direction. This by itself does not prove less rake, because the bad player can still play every hand if he wants. Maybe the good player wins more often, but the rake is still paid]
Quote:
But the amount of rake players will pay after some amount of hands played will be changed, because of less bad-beats, more skills,…
Proving that the game has fewer allins, or even just fewer big hands, would go a long way to illustrating that people would pay less rake. However, I don't see such a linkage between "less bad beats and more skill" to "less rake". Less bad beats and more skill might just mean that money flows more in one direction than the other, which might be nice for the player it flows to, but will not affect rake.
Quote:
I believe your assumptions are as good as mine(about who wants what), when we are talking about assumptions without facts behind
Perhaps. But you are the one making claims about what your game does and doesn't do - the burden of proof is on you to prove that your assumptions are correct, or at a minimum, that mine and other's are false.
Quote:
I have wrote only FACTS. Feel free to disapprove any of them.
Your definition of facts does not match mine. At the most I have seen you post some logical deduction based on assumptions. I don't agree with most of the assumptions and I don't agree with some of the deductions. But that's somewhat beside the point - even if I agreed with both, I would not consider them "facts" but rather just "arguments" or "suppositions"
Quote:
I hope that now you understand how hard it is to discuss some new poker variant that has no stats yet(and that I am not making stuff up).
I agree. But I also think you're approaching game design as a public relations exercise, rather than a game theoretical one. Which is... fine. Most of the poker games we play today were not "designed" as such, they were variations made on existing games. The good variations flourished, the bad ones died out (although good and bad are probably the wrong terms here... many games that are popular are not good and vice versa)
Last edited by RustyBrooks; 07-09-2017 at 01:41 PM.