Damn. Now my kids gonna go hungry.
Kids! pinkhearts got bad news. Yeah, gonna be a leaaaaan Xmas at the tripsONacid house. Lean, lean, lean.

This is an absurdly stupid idea.

What if it was some type of insurance that sites could offer in cash games? Whoever wins the all-in ships the pot, but if you had the insurance you'd only ever get the equity that is due to you at the time of the all-in (maybe minus a fee). So, if you lose the hand, site pays you pot * equity, if you win the hand site takes pot and pays you pot * equity. From a business point of view, I think a lot of players would like this option.

And guy who said folded cards need to be factored in is right, though I've seen evidence that the effect isn't huge.

You guys are right. It's not the same as an equity chop in any scenario.

Next season of HSP: Matusow and Hellmuth manage to get their 20bb stacks in QQ vs. AK. First 30 minutes of insurancing and antics, then they'll run it maximum.

Instead of equity chops, why don't we just all pay the sites a monthly fee, be very small losers and be done with it.

LOL!

Ridiculous.

This reduces the gambling aspect of poker which is what draws fish to the game.

Just think about it OP....

Would you go to a casino and play a slot machine that takes 2% of whatever you put into it consistently?

So you put in $1, and get back $0.98. That's an arcade, not a casino.

In poker variance is the lubrication for profit.

Scarface!!!

was thinking the same thing

Equity chop.

ONE TIME

My dream.

This answer is the key. As a basic rule, running it to the maximum would destroy that aspect of the game that keeps new and bad players interested in playing. If they consistently lose they eventually get better or stop playing (or enjoy playing and don't mind losing a certain amount as the price of the fun - but even that blessed but limited group would start to balk at this idea when they see it cost them consistently).

I mention this because it is an aspect of the whole "skill v. chance" debate regarding poker, an issue I have worked on quite a bit.

With that perspective I see one possible value in applying such an idea to poker tournaments (never cash games, its not the same at all): People will sometimes argue that poker tournaments are not "true contests of skill" because of the significance of the chance element. My two responses are always 1) Skill is still more important than chance, though the chance is clearly a big factor (in other words, skill wins out more often then not) and 2) Poker tournaments are designed to have a high but not insurmountable level of chance, this is precisely what keeps the lesser players playing: on any one night chance may favor them enough (it still takes some skill) to win.

But suppose we wanted to design a tournament that would dramatically emphasize skill over lucrative prize-pools? We all agree deep stacks and slow levels help the more-skilled player. Consider a special "Championship" event that also had a rule that said "when all remaining players are all-in prior to the final card having been displayed, the total pot shall be divided amongst the players based on the probability of winning for each player at the time that player went all-in." This would, I think, clearly result in protecting the better players from the worst effects of the element of chance.

But then again, this would not be a "fun" tournament and it could go on for a very long time. I am sure there are other problems with this idea that I haven't thought of yet. Have at it, NVG !

But remember I am not advocating for this type of tournament to replace the usual popular formats - a bad idea I agree. But I am wondering about a hypothetical tournament that would be most likely to assure the person who played the best won as a theoretical matter. Should this rule be part of that?

Skallagrim

Pretty obv this "run it max" thing would kill the games...

bad beats are just part of the game. plus that would drive the fish out in an instant.

I always liked the idea of an equity chop. Seems like its unpopular though. Maybe I'll try asking for that next time I'm asked once or twice lol.

i voted yes cause everyones solid, and addicted.

I think than an "equity chop" option would be cool. In the first 2 seconds after your hand is flipped over for an all-in, you can click equity chop. Once you've used the option, you can't do it again in that tournament, and both players don't have to agree to equity chop the same hand obviously. That way your aces won't knock you out in 12th to miss the final table when the guy with KT thinks you're bluffing preflop, and calls your 12x shove anyway..and of course flops 2 pair to knock you out.

Play no limit holdem to the fullest! Run it to the maximum!

Play with the pro's at full tilt poker .com!

+1

WAT?

Wait:

Is this run EQUITY or RUN IT THE MAXIMUM?

The run equity would obv be splitting the pot whatever your % is. Run it the maximum would be completely different and could result in LOADS of suckouts in one.

Get some gamble OP. Cmon.

Go all in preflop every hand and you can never go bust pretty much. You'll always get some percentage of your stack back. Only way to bust is to get it all in drawing dead and there's no way to be drawing dead in hold'em preflop.

While its not getting that much attention these are the kind of comments I was hoping for, thanks.

It would seem that this situation could be addressed by making the rule inapplicable to "all-ins" that are not at least the size of the big-blind, or maybe 3 big blinds. The tournament would still be very long, I think, but at least it would end someday.

Skallagrim