After my 10th consecutive bad beat just recently i started thinking to myself if there was a better way to play poker that would minimize the luck factor and bring more strategy to the game. I came up with this idea (maybe its been thought up before but i havent seen it) and wanted to know your opinions on whether it would work or not.

The game could be applied to all forms of poker but ill use hold'em as the example. The basic rules of the game would still exist except for one in that once somebody has moved all their chips into the pot there would be no more cards to come(assuming the river card is not out). Somebody would still be able to raise after the all-in but once everyone has either called/folded/raised after the first all-in everyone would flip their cards over and the best hand wins. I think this form of poker would create less bluffing and bring more strategy into the game of poker.

This is just a thought but i would appreciate any comments on whether you think it would work or not.

So if someone moves all in preflop there is no flop and the best hand wins?

Yes - As soon as someone would move all in there would be no more cards to come. I think this should eliminate any bad beats

It would also eliminate draws? Someone flops 2 pair or a set they just go all in and will usually win?

Correct, it would eliminate any draws and the best hand would win.

its obv ******ed since it woldnt be poker anymore.

semibluffing works becuas eof FE+hitting your hand, here if u pash draw u cant win and must succeed always obv...


plus if bad players cant suck out they will loose fast and realize they suck instead of blamign bad luck.

Too much like draw poker. I hate 5 card draw because there is nothing but the players to read. This idea of yours seems like it would take away strategy not the other way around. If you wanted to simply eliminate the turn and river, then that might be a better idea, since the suck outs usually occur there.

How long have you been playing? Is it 1 or 2 hours.

Sorry OP. This idea sucks.

i think you could still semi bluff and use fold equity without going all-in at each stage of the game and i think bluffs would have more value because the remaining players would have to consider if they truly have the best cards at that moment.

You have a point with the bad players though so this might drain the available pool of players

So your version would be the flop always comes out but at that point if anyone goes all-in then the turn/river are eliminated?

Fair enough,

thanks for replying

Guinness,
As stated, this would actually reduce strategy as there would be fewer decisions in a hand.

I thought it would be fun to play NL holdem with no river card. that may trim the luck factor a bit. On 2nd though, mabee this would be best for pot limet.

Bad idea OP it would turn the game into a crap shoot.

Im not really sure why this reduces strategy. Could you please explain further?

Run it twice

If you want to reduce the luck factor, play chess. How many morons out there compulsively gamble away their spare cash challenging chess experts? Not too many, because they understand they don't have a chance.

At poker, they don't stand a chance against the experts for very long, but they don't understand this. The luck clouds their judgment. You and I understand this, and profit off their mistake. The luck factor is our friend.

If no-limit hold'em in particular is too much randomness for you, there are other forms of poker. Maybe limit is less frustrating. 5-stud wouldn't have the dramatic suckouts. Stay away from omaha.

Simply put the first person to make any kind of pair would push all in thus winning the hand,so the objective of the game would become making a pair before anybody else and then shutting everyone else out by way of making a large bet.The only person who is gonna call you is someone else who managed to pair the flop thus introducing the luck or crapshoot factor.

One can not take the "luck-"factor out of poker, without taking the randomness of the game play (card deal) out of the whole thing. Without that there would be no incentive for strategic play, since outcome would be determined always and could readily be calculated (even by the simplest bots).

Now, I do realize that that is not what you meant and I am going to try to give you an answer more suited to your specific question or some aspects of it.

Firstly: Bluffing or semi-bluffing is an essential part of the game.
Secondly: Yes, may want to get all your chips in when you are ahead and some idiot to call you, but I kinda get the impression you are abusing the all-in button. Now, this may not be true for you, but with many players I get the feeling that their poker window is made up of a great, big, red-blinking all-in button and a tiny, unobtrusive card table.
Thirdly: Bad beats happen. Bad beats will always happen. They are inhert to the game.
Forthly: "Luck" (randomness) balances out over the long-run. So, you will give just as many bad beats to your opponents as they do to you. KEYWORD: Long-run
Fifthly: Loosing with A9o on an A27 board is not a bad beat. Loosing with KK on an A87 board is not a bad beat. Feel free to continue ...
Sixthly: There is no need to push all in pre-flop or on the flop almost ever. Nits chasing their draws will call bets that are not all-ins too and if they should make the draw you can still save your remaining chips.
Seventhly: Even AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQ will need to be layd down once in a while.


good day
timo

I would play it but it can't be poker - a poker hand needs 5 cards. If you went all in pre flop with AA and I called with 7h 2h I would claim my flush wins or 56o is a str8.

So a whole new set of rules would be needed and strategy would certainly have to change. If I had Ah Kh and flop was two hearts I cant bet hoping for a flush in case someone with 22 goes all in and I'm beat there and then.

In the past I played brag (not sure if it is known in USA but basically you are dealt 3 cards and thats it. Bit like mini poker) No more cards no come you just keep raising till you are called. Might sound lame but it is very exciting with the right people. What can't happen is that you are outdrawn and I think that is what you are having trouble with.

But as they say "thats Poker"

One possible addition to online poker could be once someone goes all in, chips are distributed according to equity. It would still lame poker up because it would educate the fish and take the gamble out.

We should just play with M&Ms (or your favorite candy) so when we have a bad beat we can still pay the bills.

Utterly stupid and ridiculous idea- would be a boring and totally useless game. Get dealt AK- go all in PF and steal the blinds- big fricking deal!!!

People chasing and occasionally winning (our bad beats) is what pays good players off in the long run.