Not a good idea. But one that is good is if two people are allin with the same hand equity, then they can split the pot rather than risk a bad beat.
For example if both had AA vs AA, allin pre, just split pot rather than risk a 4 flush runnout for a bad beat.
Or if AcKd vs AdKc, chop that, but if AcKd vs AdKs play it out as AdKs is the favorite.

No, nope, unh unh, not happening, bad idea.

The reason the better players percolate to the top has little to do with preflop hand selection and everything to do with post-flop play. These suggestions are, ultimately, saying: "let's remove 75% of the skill from poker and dumb the game down".

Not just pre-flop decisions. Post flop as well.

That is not my logic.

It is cumulative based on each street. In you example V1 is not entitled to any of the money that went in on the river since he was drawing dead.

Why is everyone keep thinking this has to do with preflop hand selection? That is not what I said.

At a basic level I am just suggesting a game where the players are paid according to their equity (Sklansky Bucks for the old school reference).

And who will have the most equity on each street because they make the most EV decisions? The good players. Which means the bad players will lose significantly faster, which means they will quit significantly faster, which means the games are much more likely to die.

The variance that lets bad players win sometimes is the only thing that keeps the game profitable.

I think you’re missing a key point. It’s not that your game wouldn’t be an interesting game. It is that it would ultimately be an unprofitable one, or at least one far less profitable than standard poker.

The fish just wouldn’t play the game at all. Can you imagine a gambler-type player with say 88? He is against an opponent with AA, both with $500 stacks. He raises to $15 pre and calls a 3b for $50. AA bets $100 otf, he calls (brick flop for both). AA bets another $200 on a brick turn, gambler raises to $350 all in and AA calls. When gambler spikes the 8 otr, how do you think he’s going to react when you push a $200 pot his way and give the other $800 to AA? He’s gonna say “WTF?”, rack up and go play “real” poker.

The point is that only players with a fundamental understanding of EV and the ability to make disciplined decisions to maximize EV are going to play your game; I.e. good poker players. You don’t make money playing against good players; only the casino or website makes money from such games.

A further issue: let’s assume the 88 vs AA situation as above. PF 88 calls a $50 bet, so $100 in pot on flop. Brick flop, AA bets $90, 88 folds. Does 88 still get his equity from PF? Does he get $20 or does AA get the whole pot? Either way you answer I think there are issues. If AA keeps the whole pot, then what’s the point of your modification? Consider a flop with an 8 as well; if 88 shoves and AA folds, your modification does nothing to help reduce variance.

So then, let the folding player have his PF equity. That runs into a different issue — you killed action on later streets. Essentially you’ve created a dry pot for the flop. There is no payoff for a successful bluff, so any bet must be a value bet. There’s also no reason to bet to protect your hand; draws are going to get paid based on their equity. Similarly why call to chase a draw? You won’t get paid if you hit; you only get your equity, which is almost always <50%, so calling a bet with a draw is -EV. Essentially all run outs would either be bet/fold or checked down, so why bother even having a flop, turn and river? Just pay out the equity based on PF holdings.

Your post was extremely clear and that first scenario response had me like "wtffff".

So if you're saying each player should get the portion of the pot according to equity on each street, then that will require an algebraic equation to be solved at the end of each hand to make the determination of who gets what.

Besides all the other valid arguments against this idea, given the average person's math ability, that would take longer than it took to play the hand. Not to mention the arguments when someone makes a mistake, or (more common) thinks someone else made a mistake - whether they did or not.

Just accept that it's a bad idea and move on.

If it’s online, that’s not an issue. Presumably software could be programmed to do the necessary calculations quickly. The other issues still stand, though.

How would you be acting differently if you were here for no other reason but to intentionally misread people and be an *******.

Let's get recreational players thinking about their equity and pot odds.
A rule to make them play better? Poker lessons? Not a good idea iyam.

The broad appeal of poker is that anyone can win at any time.

So you don't want people calling your all in when they're drawing to a flush or straight anymore? Draws like that will be forced to fold.

That makes NO sense.

Imagine getting it all in on the turn with a set against a straight and automatically losing lol

Or getting it all in on the turn with an open ended straight draw / flush draw and insta-losing to A high.

Not that it makes the idea any less bad, but both those draws have 30%+ equity v A and another overcard

I meant to say flop.

I would play this game gladly. It sounds like fun. Filled with excitement. No one would know the outcome until the cards are revealed.

I'm guessing you're not a long-term winning player.

Why are they forced to fold? Draws still have equity.

I am really surprised at how many posters here do not understand the concept of equity.

Good thing I already said that in my original post.

I don't think it would be aimed at the recreational player. It rewards making good decisions. The better the player is at making good decisions, the more they should like this game. Bad players would get destroyed quicker than they would in regular poker because luck is much less of a factor.

What makes this theoretical game interesting (to me at least) is that the game is still a game of incomplete information and there is still some randomness involved (especially in the short term), but the randomness plays much less of a factor so a player's actual results will match their true skill over a much shorter period of time. This makes it interesting in terms of measuring a players skill level.

With regular, real poker it is near impossible to accurately differentiate between the skill levels of two poker players due to the variance being so high. Take the recent match between Negreanu and Polk. From the results (Polk winning) it is likely that he is the more skilled player, but the variance is still high enough that it is not certain. Polk could have just run hotter in their match. Now imagine if they instead played for Sklansky Bucks and the pots were divided by cumulative equity? Thier final results would have been fairly close to the actual difference in their skill.

So yeah, as a game for the masses where random strangers play against random strangers it is a terrible game because it just becomes a feeding frenzy for the sharks. But as a game to measure skill against closely skilled opponent(s), it is far better than regular poker.

Do you really want the donators/rec. players to go home and google poker equity?

Ever heard of duplicate bridge?
Maybe you should be touting duplicate poker.