h a l f b a k e r yLike a magnifying lens, only with rocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I play a lot of online poker. Mainly for cash, but sometimes just for fun.
A good player (much like myself) will fold almost anything pre-flop. In Fact, there are just 35 pocked-card combinations that I will call. This leaves hundreds which I fold.
Many people do this, which is why you find
that on a table of eight, only 3 or 4 people call to see the flop.
This leaves the rest of us careful players bored for a majority of the game.
What I propose is that those who fold pre-flop appear in a pop up window (the side table) and can call the same pocket-cards for half of the blind value. The game would then proceed as normal
When both the main-table, and side-table games are over, everone is moved back to the main table for the next hand.
[link]
|
| |
Interesting idea….
Creates a tier level to the game, where you still get all the excitement and opportunity to win or loose instead of waiting for the next hand. The next time a poker opportunity arises I will suggest that this is involved in game play! |
|
| |
A problem I could see would be that if I had say pocket Aces and folded to join the smaller game knowing that I had more of chance of winning the side bet than the full bet, how would you control this? Suggest you would have a pot limit perhaps? |
|
| |
To answer your query about pot limits. You see, as per Texas hold 'em official rules, you can only bet, raise, re-raise in multiples of the big blind value. Therefore, pots on the side table are likely to always be lower than on the main table. |
|
| |
And also, this could be a whole new beed of bluff. You pretend like you have shit cards when really you're packing American Airlines, and everyone else is holding an unsuited 2-7. muahahahaha.... |
|
| |
Although you would be a fool too fold pocket aces on the main table, cause you really do have the strongest hand, and you should play for higher stakes. |
|
| |
//This leaves the rest of us careful players bored// |
|
| |
Careful players, post-folding, would be watching the play keenly, 'ghosting' the other players' play and looking to pick up on their betting patterns, gaining useful knowledge to use to your advantage later. |
|
| |
If you'd rather relax and have fun than do that, why not relax and have fun playing a few dodgy hands too? |
|
| |
That aside, it's an interesting idea and would possibly lead to some intriguing tactics, so [+]. |
|
| |
If I wasn't confident enough with my cards** the first time, I'm unlikely to feel compelled to bet with them the second. |
|
| |
** Or confident enough with my opponents' abilities |
|
| |
I wonder if players with borderline
hands inclined to stay in for the flop,
would drop to the second tier table in
the hopes of increasing the odds of
their hand being the winning one? |
|
| |
If a trend like this took place where
foolhardy fellows with a pair of nines
were always dropping from the main
hand then frequently the value of the
smaller pot might become larger than
the large pot. |
|
| |
Perhaps a pro-rated situaion, where the
winner of the secondary hand gets a
cut, albeit a very small cut, of the main
hand, would solve this scenario. |
|
| |
I'd agree with [DMedia] that a pot limit would be good, if just to make sure that all-ins and other time consuming things are minimised on the sub-game. Wouldn't want to hold up the main game with this. |
|
| |
A different option, with a similar intent, would be to add a feature to allow players who've folded their hands to make side-bets on who'll win the main pot. |
|
| |
Players could select the sum they want to stake and the sum that another player has to put up to take the bet, and/or call the bets other players offer. |
|
| |
E.g. "I'm prepared to bet __$50__ against someone's __$25__ that the player in seat __3__ will win this hand." |
|
| |
Allowing side-bets would keep everyone's focus on the same hand, but allows folded players to have an active, financial involvement. Plus, the better you get at reading the active players, the better you'd be at deciding which bets to take or what odds to offer, so skillful players would have an advantage in the side betting as well as the main game. |
|
| |
I like imaginality's idea better. It keeps the main game honest, doesn't hold up play and maintains interest for the drop outs. |
|
| |
All you want to do is see the flop for a smaller price? what about winning the option of winning half (probably 2/3 the pot is statistically more even odds for a half price play 2*(0+2/3)= 1+1/3 ) pot if you have the best hand after all and the next person who paid full price get the rest of the pot or all of it if he wins outright? |
|
| |
Pot rights sacrifice play. You still have one game and everyone has a stake in it. If you have a remander when dividing by 3 you can leave it for the next pot. Not probably as easy as grabbing the pot and organizing it at your leasure while the next hand is in progress. All betting from there on out would have to be proportionatly consistant |
|
| |
//If I wasn't confident enough with my cards** the first time, I'm unlikely to feel compelled to bet with them the second.// I am not sure how or when a person would want to use this it would probably be statistically the same thing and involving yourself in a smaller stakes game. If you think it might be a useful tool to take a peice out of someone you think is a bluffer and likes to pull an ocassional shananagan and you want to be able to cover more of them it might work for you. Probably using this option would be a rare thing in a game unless you have an excentric player. |
|
| |