Very simple, especially online. Certain hands, perhaps only 72, perhaps 72, 82, and92, perhaps even any hand with a deuce, gets half (or possibly some other fraction) its money back when it loses. When the hand is over eligible hands are exposed, including those in the blinds and the refund gets taken out of the pot before the winner collects.

That seems like each hand would take approximately 3.678 bajillion years for the dealer to figure out who wins what.

Sounds like you went card dead and now you want dueces to act like a coupons? Interesting..

not on-line

How about before a player takes their turn OTR, they can choose to add 5BBs to the pot.

In return, the dealer can exchange a card from the player's hand with one from the discard pile.

what if we brought jokers back and also there was a river and also straights could go all the way around like 2AKQJ and also we added splash pots to live poker where $1 from each pot is taken out and put into a jar until someone gets four of a kind or better at which point all the money in the jar is added into the next pot as dead money!

and remember the jocker is a wildcard so four of a kind or better happens more often

Years ago, I played in jacks-or-better to open draw poker games where the joker could be used as either an ace or could be used to complete a straight or a flush. Notice that this is different from a wild card where the joker can be anything.

So, that's another option.

Mason

This is interesting. I wonder if there is a % payback threshold where you switch from playing all these hands to playing none of them, and what that % is. For example, a 2% payback probably isn't lucrative enough to offset the downside risk, but a 50% payback probably is.

I like the 72 game where everyone on the table agrees to pay X$ each if someone wins with 72. It adds a fun bluffing element and generally loosens up the game.

I think it would just irritate me if I made quads and won a huge pot but have to pay half of another player's money back because they have 72.

How about the pot is split with the high spade in the hole?
Or if a queen falls on the board, the next card on the board is wild -- if the river card is a queen, then queens are wild?
Or threes and nines are wild, and if you show a four in your hand you get an extra card (a four on the board gives everyone an extra card)?

Generally, the one who proposes the 72 game is a tight player who is hoping to take advantage of other players loosening up. I remember an episode of Poker After Dark when Mike Matusow was vetoing the 72 game proposed by Phil Hellmuth, knowing full well that Hellmuth was shooting an angle.

maybe im reading/understanding it wrong

but what you are saying is if u have a 2 in ur hand u cant be beat

even if other person has royal flush u take half the pot ?? i dunno im sure i read it wrong with hands that had already folded; also get money back ?


huh


edit: if so this sounds like the dumbest idea i have literally every heard./read/seen

yeah if thats the case take 2's out of the deck ? im sure ur doing a wind up here lol well played

You get back half what you contributed to the pot before the pot is shipped to the winner.
Idea is to rebate trash hands to encourage action. Like, bluffing with these hands becomes super profitable because you’re guaranteed to get half your bet back and half of all prior bets if you lose lol.

House would probably love it because it results in more split or partially split pots. Reduces skill factor in game by a lot since the game becomes "get a deuce".

What problem is this solving?

Nah. Just messes up the way deepstack poker is played way too much.

Interesting idea because this could create some ridiculous action, especially it could be pulled off live.

Imagine a big pot where it's AA vs QQ vs 82 where someone with a deuce decides to get stupid because they know they get a rebate regardless.

Call it Texas Holdem - "Deuces Never Loses" or DNL for short.

To recap, if you have a bad deuce in your hand, you get a percentage of the pot back. Creates some very interesting equity dynamics if you know you are against AK and you have 72... If you read your opponent for AK, and you have 72 and you know you get a rebate, I don't know the math, but depending upon the percentage you'd get back, you may have to call every time. If you are the AK player, do you have to start putting 72 in the LAG's range?

and multi-handed it could be crazy.

and every hand is a nit/standup game bomb pot!

David whatever you’re smoking pass it this way

The rebate is half of that player's money. Or some other fraction of his money. Not of the total pot. Doing it for all deuces would probably make 50% too high. That percentage should probably be reduced or make the 50% for fewer hands. The reason to contemplate offering this game would be to allow players to play more starting hands and to make it harder for diligent algorithm memorizers to have a big edge over other players. It isn't a totally silly game like others mentioned and the correct strategy would require quite a bit of thinking. Unfortunately, I suspect that solvers wouldn't have too much trouble with it so the diligent non thinking memorizer would probably eventually have the edge over everyone but the good thinking memorizers like they do now.

Let’s just play go fish instead

I wonder how you would even solve this, I guess you'd add a 50% pot size (or whatever) to every hand with a 2's ev or something.

No.