Quote:
Originally Posted by Kafja
poker analogies are, of course, always terrible - but boy that one is a doozy
If I wanted to create the most fair, most competitive, most fun poker game that rewarded skill and determined the best players, I would start out by making sure everyone had basic necessities such as food and shelter, because someone that has to worry about how to feed their kids for half the day won't have enough time to become a successful poker player. I would also give everyone access to healthcare and medicine, since of course getting sick for an extended period of time would put anyone at a competitive disadvantage.
In addition, I would make sure everyone gets poker books, HUDs, solvers, internet access, and a macbook pro. It's evident that I can't figure out who is the best if some people have massive technological advantages over others. I want the people with the greatest combination of talent and work ethic to rise to the top.
Then I would likely develop some sort of system where the biggest winners gave some of their profits back to the losers, to keep everyone happy and with enough of a bankroll to keep playing. This could come in the form of very high rakeback for the least successful players, direct dividends, or increased coaching and assistance.
I would probably take particular care to protect the legality of poker in every jurisdiction, and monitor the police to ensure that they're not preventing anyone from playing based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. I would also be on the lookout for threats, harassment, and discrimination by poker dealers, bankers, and other players.
Finally after setting everything up, I would start the game and let the players play.
What I would NOT do is gather a person or a team, have them observe a poker game, and after every hand decide how well everyone played and distribute the pot accordingly. While this might seem logical and fair and produce superior results for a hand or two, it becomes obvious that over any reasonable length of time the results of the poker game will be a better predictor of success than the opinions and biases of the judges, as well as being far less prone to corruption and with a strong, objective, meritocratic public image.
What I would also NOT do is guarantee everyone the same or nearly the same amount of chips after the game since in my opinion no one would want to play or study poker in that case.