Would you play this poker game that has only one major change from no limit hold'em?

[Jayinem]

Whoever was in the lead before the river splits the pot with whoever wins on the river.

Of course if you were winning before the river and your cards hold up you get the entire pot, but if someone hits on the river you split the pot.

I assume the gambler types would hate it, but maybe everyone would I don't know.

 

[LukeSilver]

It is a totally different game at that point.

If I have say AhKh on a 7d4h3h board against 9d7c then I am 53% to win in fact against most over pairs or top pair hands I am over 50%. So if villain moves all in and I believe most of his range is top pair or over pair then I should go for the all in clash. (assuming cash or mtt that does not take into account ICM factor)

however in your scenario rather then having >50% equity I have roughly 25/26% equity in the pot. I go from been able to call any bet villain makes to only been able to call if I am getting odds of 3-1 or better.

all draws are now weakened significantly. Also the famous two over cards vs a pair flips are a thing of the past. previously AK was a good all in hand because you block AA and KK by removing an A and a K making it harder for villain to have AA or KK most likely with AK your either flipping or a strong favourite but now if AK suited gets it against 22 they go from been 49.77% vs 49.6% with 0.63% of a split to

outright losing 49.6% of the time
splitting 49.77% of the time
and taking 25% of the pot 0.63% of the time.

lets say for simplicity the all in was 50bb from both players and assume its blind vs blind with no antee then there are 100bb in the pot

in the current format hero with AK suited has a chip ev of 49.77%*100=49.77
+ 0.63%*100=0.63
so 49.77+0.63=50.4

to
50%*49.77%*100=24.885
+0.63%*0.25*100=0.88
=24.885+0.88=25.765

so basically AK suited goes from been the marginally positive side of a coin toss to been absolutely crushed.

The change you propose would massively alter the game.

the entire strategy for playing the game would need to be changed this in effect becomes an entirely different format/game.

if this became the dominant format then I guess I would have to do intensive study to learn the better way of playing this game but unless that happens it would just be a novelty game I might occasionally play for micro stakes.

 

[s0ftdumps]

The spectrum side of me says NO CHANGES lol

 

[MK_]

I think it sounds like giving everyone a participation trophy, I play a lot of hilo and there I like quartering or scooping based on different pots but here you are playing for the same pot and likely having to split it every hand???... where is the profit coming from?, to the victor go the spoils.. so no😎

 

[Luvepoker]

This would be a really different game. If it became the dominating game out there, I may try it but I don't think this would be as fun of a game to play.

 

[TulasMoreno]

I would no change any rules of actual poker nlh, i love it the way it is.

 

[The_Kid456]

I'd play a game like that for sure. I've actually played on poker Apps, and if players go all in and the cards are on the table it offers the player who's in the lead the chance to buy insurance.
For example after the river is revealed, if I have the best hand I get several offers. I can choose to take an 1/8th - 1/2 of the pot if someone ends up beating me. The catch being if you decide to keep part of the pot, and you win, then your opponent gets a small portion of your winnings. And I do like that variation.
The only problem with that is if players don't go all in and cards aren't on the table, it doesn't work, because it would reveal if you have the better hand. Unless you gave that option to every player, but that could slow the game down to much

 

[Jayinem]

I'd play a game like that for sure. I've actually played on poker apps, and if players go all in and the cards are on the table it offers the player who's in the lead the chance to buy insurance.
For example after the river is revealed, if I have the best hand I get several offers. I can choose to take an 1/8th - 1/2 of the pot if someone ends up beating me. The catch being if you decide to keep part of the pot, and you win, then your opponent gets a small portion of your winnings. And I do like that variation.
The only problem with that is if players don't go all in and cards aren't on the table, it doesn't work, because it would reveal if you have the better hand. Unless you gave that option to every player, but that could slow the game down to much

If you're folded you can't win, so if I was ahead after the turn and you hit a flush on the river and bet and I folded you win the entire pot. This would only apply to pots that get played all the way down. So the option to bluff and win the entire pot is still there.

 

[pentazepam]

I play anything that involves money.

But spilt games are generally less fun.

 

[Axmanace]

As others have said - completely different game.

Makes drawing hands significantly weaker.

it would also mess up tournament play.


I have a hunch it would give too much of an advantage to bigger stacks.

 

[LUKADONCICMVP]

No way i would play that at all

 

[WrongUsername]

i like all formats of poker, wish sites offered that more often

 

[Rosylly]

no, river badbeats are just part of the game, i don't know why people can't accept it, yes it can be rough, but that's how it is.

with that rule it's not even about poker anymore, it would be a game called "have a combination at the flop"

 

[Inabit]

Doesn't sound too apealing to me, I think games that use the low hand for splitting the pot is a more interesting variant of poker.

 

[jose_saleh]

I don´t like that rule, it actually dumps most of good hands which are madeuntil river (full, str8, etc). It would make poker less interesting

 

[Delenia]

I would try it. I like trying different games.

 

[Rahatis]

Yes. Then hate it and quit.

 

[yuriko oyama]

the charm of poker for me is that it is so traditional.
I wouldn't play, and I would definitely hate it.

 

[kiricowell]

I'm very happy about this because it taught me a very important and useful lesson. It taught me to value what other people share so I can lessen the stress in my life age of war

 

[lyki67]

No. I stay by classic HoldEm. And I like to play OmahaHL if I will change and possibility to split pot.

 

[LukeSilver]

you know in spin and goes every so often I see players that go all in every hand. One of them is a reg who just tilts off if they run bad, not sure if they can still be profitable like that or not but when they are playing a solid game they are playing a winning game then they chuck it away by doing that silly stuff.

it gets frustrating when 92 off sucks out on AK-AQ and I get that, and sometimes these beats all come at once but if your playing a profitable game you still win in the long run.

you cant eliminate luck changing the game would just change the strategy but bad luck would still be a thing.

everything about this change would fundamentally change the very nature of correct strategy and the game for every single street pre flop, flop turn, river etc.

Whilst I am playing poker my target is to get the most amount of money for the least amount of effort. that is not to say make no effort but just attain the best result I can.

I would not touch this game if it was new to a site or etc other then to just mess around for micro stakes because I would not want to commit large amounts of time to learning a game that would rarely run or would run for small amounts.

Now if this became the dominant format that everyone played, and was where most of the action was I would go back to the drawing board and learn this game.

you cant really get risk free gambling if you want formats that your likely to be almost always profitable in with any reasonable sample with next to no effort I can point anyone in that direction.

But It wouldn't be cash galore I am talking about exploiting over lays taking advantage of free bets and playing free rolls.

If you hope for that to turn into an easy living I seriously doubt it, unless your cost of living is incredibly low. if you would like something that could make a few hundred maybe a grand a year at a push yes it can do that.

 

[xOneCoolHandx]

Whoever was in the lead before the river splits the pot with whoever wins on the river.

Of course if you were winning before the river and your cards hold up you get the entire pot, but if someone hits on the river you split the pot.

I assume the gambler types would hate it, but maybe everyone would I don't know.

I don't think this is a good idea. It doesn't account for equity or table image and it really takes away bluffing which is a HUGE part of the game. I could see this making people jam and call happy with a lot of random hands. The game is great the way it already is despite the occassional (or on some sites frequent) bad beats.

 

[john_entony]

Whoever was in the lead before the river splits the pot with whoever wins on the river.

Of course if you were winning before the river and your cards hold up you get the entire pot, but if someone hits on the river you split the pot.

I assume the gambler types would hate it, but maybe everyone would I don't know.

I really like your version of poker! I think it suits me a lot. I'm not a gambler, to be honest and I like the cold-blooded way of playing poker. For me poker is more about sports, so I like to keep things fair in poker. Bad beats are very common in modern online poker. I would like some kind of guarantee of success of my game until the river.

 

[steve01991]

i guess if you play a lot of online poker, you might play that game, i have been burned by the river so many times.