Sklansky Bucks vs. Showdown Winnings

So I've been thinking a little about the feasibility of this. I don't plan on doing it but it would be an interesting experiment. I was thinking say you have a group of like 10 people who all play cash games. At the end of the day (or week, month, year, etc.), you determine theoretically how much someone should have won by using:

total winnings + sklansky bucks - showdown winnings. Then if there is money left in the pool each is given an equal share (so they split the good luck the group had overall) and if there's a loss, an equal amount is taken from each person's total to make the poll total 0.

So that led me to wondering, how would poker change if that was your goal. Your goal is now to maximize total winnings + sklansky bucks - showdown winnings. For all-in decisions it's the exact same thing. In the long run your winnings will approach the immediate result of winAmount + sklansky bucks - winAmount. Basically just the raw sklansky bucks. But the problem comes in for the non-showdown hands. My method would simply say that we ignore luck in non-showdown pots. This is because it's impossible to calculate, as the cards are not shown down. This isn't a problem as long as strategy isn't being tailored to this method.

But when it does, the problem comes into the fact that the player has a choice in whether to send a pot to showdown. Say for example you call a bet without odds (pot odds or implied odds). You then proceed to hit. You know that if the hand goes down to showdown you don't get rewarded for hitting, but end up losing money overall. So although the usual method would be to bet for value, instead you straight shove. One of 2 things will happen:

1. You get called, the money from the call is pure profit, because at that point you were 100% to win, and you do have to give up some of the flop/turn money you wouldn't have won because you sucked out

2. You get a fold, you keep 100% of the money since it was a non-showdown hand.

Alternatively if you miss as long as you can keep the pot cheap you will get some of your money back since you were better than 0%.



But that's not really important, the importance that brings is the fact that as a corrolary to that, it seems that the sklansky bucks vs. showdown winnings graph is not actually an accurate representation of your luck. In fact from what I can think a neutral-luck graph of a good player should actually look lucky. That's because the good player should be able to fold more when they either miss or get drawn out on, thus the bad luck isn't shown in the showdown stats, and the good player is getting value when they hit, betting an amount that will keep the opponent in the hand.

Not sure exactly if this means anything, but basically it seems as if the graph that I sort of used as my luck-meter the last month or two is fundamentally off. Am I clear or did I just confuse everyone?