Fair Poker

Perhaps poker would be better if every time players were all-in, the dealer split the pot according to their equity, instead of running it out and pushing everything to the winner of the hand.
For instance, if Alice had AA and Bob had KK and both went all-in pre-flop with, say, $100 in the middle, the dealer would automatically award exactly $82 to Alice and $18 to Bob and move on to the next hand (these amounts are known as Sklansky bucks or all-in EV’s).
What an ideal world that would be, right? No more bad beats!

That would make it impossible to knock anyone out of a tourney unless they shove on the river with no equity.

You would never be able to do anything

This are against the poker game, imagine you doing all you can to win the pot, making traps, steal, and finish without all the money because the dealer had split the pot.

In PS we have a similar game, when we are playing in cash game we can choose to win our correspondent percentage of victory in the pot, but it will run until the river, to see what will happen and the other player can choose to play normal and not win his percentage of victory.

mesquotes said:

Perhaps poker would be better if every time players were all-in, the dealer split the pot according to their equity, instead of running it out and pushing everything to the winner of the hand.
For instance, if Alice had AA and Bob had KK and both went all-in pre-flop with, say, $100 in the middle, the dealer would automatically award exactly $82 to Alice and $18 to Bob and move on to the next hand (these amounts are known as Sklansky bucks or all-in EV’s).
What an ideal world that would be, right? No more bad beats!

Click to expand...

..... but then, it wouldn't be poker.

I am a tight player, so, for me it would be great
But I have to say that the game it wouldn't be much fun as it is, because the bluffs and poker strategies is the fun part.

It`s good,but where is the player in that poker?

That is almost as bad as riverless poker.

I don't see it working very well.
bad beat is part of poker

On a similar note, I’d like to see a variant of hold em where say 10% of the final pot is awarded to whoever would have made the best hand had they played til the end. So let’s say you fold 72 preflop and the board goes 76222, you would win 10% of the final pot. It would definitely change tournament strategy as if you’re short, you may try and hold out and hope two monster stacks go all in and you win 10% of a monster pot if you’re lucky enough that your two cards would have made the best hand.

This is already implemented. In pokerstars cash games when you are all-in and see the percentage, you may chose to cash out your pot equity. In tournament it makes no sense.

The beauty of poker is with the cards you have regardless of the value of winning jackpots, tournaments, hands, knowing how to bluff, catching them when they try to deceive you, many more things that make poker wonderful, it is fun and unpredictable and with that it is I would lose many things

That would end the excitement of the game.
I prefer the game with its luck.
The passion for the game goes through emotion, doubt, luck, courage.

mesquotes said:

Perhaps poker would be better if every time players were all-in, the dealer split the pot according to their equity, instead of running it out and pushing everything to the winner of the hand.
For instance, if Alice had AA and Bob had KK and both went all-in pre-flop with, say, $100 in the middle, the dealer would automatically award exactly $82 to Alice and $18 to Bob and move on to the next hand (these amounts are known as Sklansky bucks or all-in EV’s).
What an ideal world that would be, right? No more bad beats!

Click to expand...

lol I am not the only one to think of this idea! I did a thought experiment with this myself months ago. Thinking about this made me appreciate luck and bad beats in a paradoxical way. Obviously, there are intrinsic problems with this style of poker (such as never being taken out unless one has 0% equity on an all-in shove).

Summary: happy to see I am not the only philosophical odd-ball here but yeah, I stopped thinking about this about 5 minutes after I thought of it because the pragmatic implications would make for a much more boring poker game.

It does put a different light to something Phil Hellmuth once said when venting at being card dead though, "*sigh* I don't even need good cards to win - just average cards!"

With the exception of blatant cheating, poker is a fair game.

Lol it'll take all the excitement out of the game,make it harder to win the game and just an overall bad idea to me tbh. Seems like you want to gamble but not lose,then why gamble? Best you stick to play money ����*♂️

I do like it when there's an option to run it twice. It flattens out the luck a lot on giant all in pots.

Then bluffing will disappear in poker. One side of this game. There will be a lot of allins preflop. The whole concept of the game will change.
In general, the idea is interesting, based on your idea, you can create one of the options for the game of poker.

mesquotes said:

Perhaps poker would be better if every time players were all-in, the dealer split the pot according to their equity, instead of running it out and pushing everything to the winner of the hand.
For instance, if Alice had AA and Bob had KK and both went all-in pre-flop with, say, $100 in the middle, the dealer would automatically award exactly $82 to Alice and $18 to Bob and move on to the next hand (these amounts are known as Sklansky bucks or all-in EV’s).
What an ideal world that would be, right? No more bad beats!

Click to expand...

Communism is a nice idea by the way. But let's walk away from the cards and have a look at this example:

Bill Gates spends 500 calories per day and earns 2 millions per day, John the shepherd spends 2500 calories per day walking with goats and earns 50 bucks per day. Why the world is not doing anything about it? John and Bill can split calories and money in some more fair way - right? Oh yeah, we've forgot about another 7 billions of people standing in line behind John and waiting for their share of the pie.:nurse:

Hello.
Poker is good just the way it is. If you want more justice, find another hobby. For example, drawing or knitting.

Very unusual idea. Of course, it seems a little crazy and impossible, but you need to implement and try to play, maybe it will be interesting.

This will make the game much more boring in my opinion. Yes it will avoid some bad beats but will also avoid the situations when you hit your card and win big pot being underdog. By the way something similar is already tried by pokerstars with the possibility to cash out your equity in cash game when you are all in so we will see how it goes.

Such a function already exists at stars and has not yet brought anything to poker apart from an additional commission (in other words, like other innovations of stars)

It's not a poker then, so what's the point?