I don't think this post really addresses my post that it was in response to.

Also, leave a line between paragraphs. Your long posts are difficult and annoying to read with no spacing between paragraphs and the text all jammed together.

As was pointed out to the OP in another thread, it is not possible to copyright or get any other IP protection for the rules of a card game. Copyright doesn't cover game rules, period. And if it uses a standard deck of playing cards, you also cannot obtain a patent.

I didn't say he would succeed, just that this is a pretty shallow attempt to take an existing idea, tweak it slightly, and then try to monetize it. Per the Nil poker website, these are the following patents being siught:

"Patent application has been filed for:

– Nil Card

– Nil Poker Playing Cards (65 playing cards – common deck of playing cards (52 cards) and 13 Nil Cards)

– Method for Playing Nil Poker Playing Cards (playing any kind of game with Nil Poker Playing Cards)."

Didn't know it had a website. OP doesn't even care if everyone here thinks his game sucks, he just wants to make some money.

Well OP, since your patents are never going to hold up and nobody is going to want to play it I suggest you let it go before you put in more time and money.

Thank you for feedback Lego05. I really think i explained it very simple(with simple logic), but if i misinterpret something please tell me what. I would like to hear your opinion. Thank you.
Yes, i understand about paragraphs. Thank you for letting me know.

I usually do not answer to people that are trying to make a bad thing of what i did(in the way you are trying to do). I really believe people will want to play nil poker. There are so many people out there who are seeking for poker with a little more skills involved than regular poker(52-card deck). So, the moves, that they make and all the books that they read about poker will make a bit more sense. I make this poker variant for people. For people and nothing more. There is really a lot of people out there that does want a little more skill-based poker. I know some people who run really, really bad (it is not their fault to run bad; but this is poker so running bad can happened). I think there is a lot of people who considered poker a bit too lucky game.

How can something that is made for some people, be a bad thing? I know a lot of people who will never even consider talking bad(in the way you are trying) about any kind of invention that is good for some people(even if 2 people will want to play it in the whole world), while just talking bad. How do you think all poker rooms are making money?With rake...How do you think this site is making money? With advertising all the poker forms... I do not see how can be a bad thing, if someone make some new poker variant (innovative work; thinking with your own head to make something different) and if people who considered poker a bit too lucky and who are running bad, will want to play this new poker variant. Even if nobody in the whole world does not want to play nil poker, to me it is really not normal that you just want to make some innovative work of any kind a bad thing in the way you do it(i will never even consider talking bad about any innovative work in the way you do it; and i think a lot of people are thinking the same way; i think it is cool that people are making new things in general, otherwise we would be still in caves).

People who want to play poker will not pay a dime more if they play nil poker variant. Nobody is going to pay a dime more if they want to play nil poker(instead of poker(52-card deck)) as a home game or something similar. But the companies that will try to make money on my idea are probably need to pay something(i think this is fair, if they want to make money with something that is innovative; using somebody´s else intelect to make money).

Basically, i see a lot of non-constructive sentences trying to talk bad things about nil poker. I wrote a lot about my opinions on nil poker and i had some constructive feedback which i really appreciate. But if you write something, please read all that has been said allready, as if you do not read it all, it is not constructive opinion and i really can not answer that in the future. Also, i am not planning to answer this type of posts in the future. Anyway, i wish you good luck.

About »patenting« nil poker… I had made a lot of studies about how to do it, what to do,… But i will not even trying to explain it to people who just talk bad about nil poker in the way some people do here. I think that you can all find it very interesting how and what is there to be done(patent,…). But rather than this, you just talk bad.

As i am not here to argue about anything, you can just talk bad on…I really do not care. But I think a lot of people reading this will agree with my thoughts. I think it is cool that somebody from this community actually have made all the studies of what and how can be done and in which cases(and is actually willing to talk about this if somebody ask him normally) . But no, you rather talk bad. Cool.

Also, i appreciate everybody´s opinion if they do not want to play nil poker, but posts needs to be a little more constructive(some of the posts actually are constructive), if you want to make serious statement. Again, i am very happy for all the constructive posts. I can not thank you enough for that posts (this is meant for anybody that take their own time and write some constructive things about nil poker).Anyway, i wish you good luck.

I find very interesting that a lot of »winning« players are saying they will never play this game. Winning poker players play poker to make money against less experienced players. That is only reason why they play poker. To make money. So, they will make more money when playing nil poker. But what? They do not want to make more money? This does not make any sense.

I am not here to argue or something like this, i am here because i want people that are involved in poker for a lot of years to give me opinion about nil poker. But i am not getting a lot of that. Except from some people, which i am really thankful about. I can not say how much i appriciate all the constructive posts(even criticisms; but not the ones that think that innovative work is a bad think; we should all go in caves than). All those opinions helps me a lot. I think i have stated why i believe nil poker is more skill-based than poker pretty good, with simple logic. I really have no problem to think other way when somebody will explain how is nil poker not more skill-based than poker(52-card deck), as mentioned before i think i explained it really well why i think nil poker is more skill-based. Thank you.

So if these companies need to make a profit they could just use an existing game of poker that has no patents on it. Then they charge the normal rake. Or they could pay you to use your game and to make the same profit they need to increase the rake because there is two mouths to feed now.

Why? You come with the claim that it is the most skill-based card game ever. It is pointed out this is impossible so you backpaddle to the most skill-based poker game while you haven't actually demonstrated that nil poker requires more skill. In fact from what I can tell diluting the deck creates a bigger separation in equity between certain hands (which is what you intended) so it becomes more difficult to play drawing hands preflop which makes it better to fold them. Folding more isn't skill. Yes you can bluff but if you strengthen someones range they can capture more value the times you have a flush draw so if I bluff equal or more than in normal poker my showdown equity is going to kill me if I do.

Also you think people are going to want to play this but I haven't seen anyone reply with "this is awesome I totally want to play this" and I've seen plenty that would find it boring.

Nobody has disagreed with you saying that nil-poker would be more skill based than regular poker. What they are saying is that the small decrease in variance has the side effect of making the game much more boring. Recreational players do not want to play a boring game with low variance that they have no chance of winning. The variance and luck in poker is a feature not a flaw.

Speak for yourself. I haven't even seen anybody define "more skill based" yet.

From what I can tell, the original poster seems to equate being "more skill based" to having a larger equity gap between hands.

I don't know that larger equity gaps between hands is really all that people are thinking when they think in general about how "skill based" a game is.

However, I do agree that the equity gap between hands would be larger in nil poker.

If people played nil poker exactly, or close to, how they play current versions of games today, then there certainly would be opportunity for profit because they would be playing way too loose and all the bad calls that poorer players make now would be even worse because they would have even less equity. I assume that eventually people would start playing tighter.

Even if it were more skill based, which I do not necesarily see, I am failing to see why this is attractive. Good players do not look for other good players, they look for inexperienced players who think the game is about luck. having a game where hands are more polarized, suck outs are less common, and skill is supposed to be the deciding factor will drive away all the easy money. This is not good for anyone.

This.
There's a reason that poker popularity exploded when NLHE became well known. There are other lower variance forms with larger skill edges already, that don't need a new deck type. They are dying and being forgotten.

Nillions to be made off this game.

Also the players that might want to play this because they "get unlucky all the time" are probably the players that get fleeced even harder if this game actually has less variance and more skill, so it isn't good for them either.

Thank you wahoo3 for your feedback. I really appreciate it.
I understand your concerns, but i really do not think that lower variance has the effect you mentioned. When playing nil poker tournaments variance will still be huge.

Thank you Lego05 for your feedback.
Yes this is one of the main reasons i am saying nil poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck): Larger equity gap between hands and because this makes all the bad moves at poker(52-card deck) even worse at nil poker, by adding nil cards. Also, meaning more room to bluff, hero-calling,... (basically all the things that make poker a skill game are more important at nil poker), as people will hit a bit more »air«. Plus all that has allready been written.

I know it is very hard to predict if nil poker is going to be played tighter than poker(52-card deck).I really understand everbody´s concerns about that. But i really do not believe optimal play at nil poker is to be tight(except while playing super gamblers: but this is very rare nowadays).

Do you(everybody) think nil poker(played as holdem: nil holdem) will be more aggressive(not boring) when played as hyper-turbo(sng:500 starting chips) or cashgame(20 buy-in max) in comparison to same type of games in texas holdem(52-card deck). I think it would be more aggressive than played as holdem(52-card deck) in this case as I believe that you can not play tight and win it(playing against average skilled poker players). There is too big gap when noone hits nothing on board, so good players(and all the other players too) will just need to bluff more, otherwise blinds will eat you. So, i believe this makes every other think go up(hero calling,…) and therefore i believe nil holdem(hyper-turbo and CG(20buy-in max))will be played more aggresive(not boring) than same type of games played in texas holdem(52-card deck).

I know that a lot of people have said that nil poker would be boring to play(in majority type of poker games).I really appreciate all the constructive thoughts, but I do not believe it will be boring. It is really hard to predict. For those who think playing nil poker is going to be boring: Do you think it will be boring even in the case above? As i see really a lot of raising, hero calling, bluffing,.. in the case above.

I have a couple of thoughts.

My personal expectation is that nil poker won't play much like anything in particular, because I don't expect it will ever be played, or at least not very much. The only way this game gets a lot of play will be if it is offered on-line. Then, people might play it out of curiosity, and might even find it to be a good game. However, it is unlikely that any existing site is going to devote programming time to a game that nobody has ever played.

Why won't it be played live? People have been owning, handling, shuffling, dealing 52 card decks for a long long time. They are familiar with them. Suddenly having to make a major change to a 65 card deck, when they have no particular reason to do so, is just unlikely to happen.

When I initially saw the post about this game, I assumed that OP had not only developed the game, but also had played it among a number of his friends. Possibly done some market research to see how people felt about the game. I'm guessing from the bulk of your responses (OP) that you didn't do that. Possibly you talked to one or more people, and maybe you played it a couple times with one or more people - but I don't get the impression that you did much (if anything) beyond that. If you had, you would probably know how the game plays, rather than having to speculate.

So, if I were to suggest something to you is it this: Find someone who can program an online version of this. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it needs to be workable. Then maybe set up some trial cash games and trial tournaments and allow people to get the feel of how it works. You could set up freerolls where you put up a small prize to the winner (so people don't feel like it is just play chips - this would be a minor expense in the entire process) It is pretty clear from all of the responses to date that people here are very underwhelmed by the idea of nil poker. You have made dramatic claims backed up only by your own ideas, but certainly not by any actual evidence.

I would personally not have any interest in going out my way to play this game. But I would be more than willing to give it a try just to see how it plays. If I knew you and you asked me to get a bunch of people together to give it a try, I would also do that. But my point is that you need some actual game play evidence of the value of this game before you expect to get anyone to take it seriously.

Winner.

I appreciate your every thought and thank you for taking your time.I also appreciate your suggestions on what is there to be done with nil poker. So, thank you for that, too. This is reason why I came to this site. That some people help me with their knowledge and suggestions(It is allways cool to learn; you never know too much). Yes, I understand everbody´s concerns: is this game going to be boring?,… As this is forum, so I think it is fine to give opinions on how things can turn while playing nil poker. But i guess time will tell. I will probably make online app in near future.

I really believe that there are people who want to play a game that has little less variance than poker(52-card deck) – nil poker. For those people who said that they do not want to play nil poker: it is fine with me. If you will want to play a game with little less variance some day, you know how it is called. Otherwise, you are more then welcome to enjoy poker(52-card poker). I made this game for the people. Actually, everybody that I asked about nil poker in real life said that is amazing idea, or in the worst case they said they will at least give it a try and see how it plays.

I really believe I have stated why nil poker is more skill-based than poker(52-card deck) very good. I really have no problem to think other way when somebody will explain how is nil poker not more skill-based than poker(52-card deck). Yes, I agree with you, I have still a lot of things to do with nil poker. Thank you again for your post. It was very helpful.

This is so true and will be a major factor in the take up
4 colour decks have been around since the 1820s but are still rare in card rooms, without trying to buy a set on the high street.

Poker is gambling game, and variance is what makes it popular.
It's what keeps the dream of a 'big score' alive.

OP
Have you practised shuffling and dealing with a 65 card deck.
I'd imagine it would be similar to handling a Tarot deck - and about as useful

Are automated shufflers even capable of handling 65-card decks?

Thank you expat for your feedback.
I really do understand your concerns. But, I really do not believe new 65- card deck is that big of a deal. Playing cards are getting old, cards tear apart.. and people buy new ones. I do not see reason why anybody would not want to buy (if you are planning to buy new playing cards anyway) a 65-card deck, if you can play a lot of new card games with it (added value).

Yes, I tried shuffled it. Those added 13 nil cards makes no difference.

This is actually the first and probably only logical thing you've mentioned about this "game".

Completely ridiculous it is a whole extra suit of course it is going to make a difference.

OP why don't you create a poll to get peoples opinions, though I'd bet we all know the results already.