Verifying a scientific hypothesis with a Poker Game
MY HYPOTHESIS: Money put at risk can make memory work better and help recall useful information.
This game is unique. It could not only prove that free pot donations can make sense, but also it could prove my hypothesis when being televised with hole-cams or at least having the dealer interviewed. It's 6 players max, LIVE table only and there's no betting, only pot donations instead.
First, a good dealer with no intentions to cheat is required for this game. This shouldn't be a problem. Cheating is theoretically possible, but also quite easy to detect by players so it can't guarantee profits in a long run. Besides, the game is based on donations, so you don't have to add money to the pot if you don't want to.
Players must post Antes and then they get their hole cards. They look at their own cards and also the dealer must look and memorize all player's hole cards. The free pot donations made by players in 4 rounds (pre-flop, 1st, 2nd and 3rd flop card) are supposed to help the dealer remember / recall their hole cards. Turn and river are never dealt and there's no showdown. Instead, the dealer decides who has the best flop odds (%) and this player wins the pot.
The game leaves all players with uncertainty in every hand, but you never know what kind of result would the turn and river give if they were dealt.
If the dealer has no intentions to cheat or make random decisions, the game will be quite spectacular then. I'm quite sure myself, that the bigger donation you make when you have good cards, the easier for the dealer will be to remember or recall your cards. Players can also try to bluff, but this will work only when the dealer remembers good cards, but he's not sure who has them.
G. J.
23 Replies
If the game confirms the hypothesis, it will unmask a new area of the real face of money. It's a one step further look at the complexity of its characteristics. Using this as a game mechanic would be innovative in terms of poker and also in terms of science. I don't want to sound too serious, but I'm analyzing this quite deeply and it all seems to be correct.
>>> A lot of you are probably thinking: "Makes no sense, the dealer can make any decision he wants and nobody can verify if it was random, honest or cheating".
- Yes, but first of all, even if the dealer makes a mistake or random decision sometimes, it won't be a problem because if you have 80% on the flop - you still have 20% to lose. Sometimes you would lose with your great hole cards. The game still "sees" the turn and river even though they're not dealt. Suspending every hand between flop and turn lets the whole thing work.
- Secondly, there are plenty of great NLHE dealers out there who could deal this game 100% fair. Not to mention, that this could build a more visible personality of each dealer. They always stay in the shadows, but here they could be less anonymous.
- Profitable long run cheating would be easy to detect because it would require one player to win many hands in a row to make profits. Other players would leave the table if they see this happen. Plus it would ruin the dealer's reputation.
I would also add that the game is a little bit "chaotic and less mathematically strict" in terms of the rules - and thanks to this it's difficult to fully break its rules.
Let's vote ! 
what is the point of the game?
how is this fun?
Individually - The point of the game is to make real money profit, it's still poker. You simply donate money to the pot - as much as you want, so it's easier for the dealer to remember your cards. 4 donation rounds are supposed to help players precisely point that they have a good hand at a particular moment - which helps the dealer to recall your cards. The sooner you start donating with good cards, the better chance there is that your hand is memorized by the dealer. If you don't donate, your hand is very likely to be forgotten or misread, so you won't win the pot. Also, bluffing is still possible.
In general - Prove that money put at risk makes memory work better.
It can be fun, just like any other poker game. It's based on NLHE and it can be televised. You only need to find a good dealer, some training would be required first.
i still don't get it though
do you have any studies to share about money and memory - it's also not the dealer's money so why would that influence things?
Yeah, my hypothesis sounds more general than precise, but I did it on purpose to avoid mistakes.
It's about the observer's memory in this case. But since the observer is involved in the whole process, it connects one with the other even though it's not his money.
If the game works properly, players donate and the dealer confirms the influence of donations (which I'm 99% sure of), the precise conclusion will be: "Real money pot donations made by poker players help recall cards memorized by the dealer, although occasionally (rarely) the result is a false recall / false memory".
This would mean that the general hypothesis (in post #1) is correct.
A lot will depend on the dealer's skills and his attitude towards the game. I think changing the dealer would mean also changing the game a little bit.
rick - This guy things he's going to invent the next great poker game. A lot of the games he comes up with have the players donating to the pot. Or not. Enough people have told him that good players will just wait until they have the nuts and then jump in. He's just trying to justify how donating is a good thing.
wouldn't optimal strategy be never donate?
are you not aware that in a game without antes and blinds the optimal strategy is to fold everything except AA which is open shoved?
@Didace - And even if you mean "flopping the nuts" like a top set on dry flop - it's still not a good strategy to wait until the last 3rd card comes because the sooner you start donating - the better chance for your hand is to be remembered or recalled correctly by the dealer. So, the later you start donating the better chance for your hand to be forgotten or remembered incorrectly.
Cards are never revealed face up, remember. There's no showdown. This time I'm right 😀
@rick - there are Antes.
But there's a scientific hypothesis about memory.
but if others don't need to match my "donation" then i'm adding money for zero benefit
how do you not see that?
within minutes everyone will figure it out and everyone will just check down
Let's say the game is 6 handed. The key thing is to make any of the players make the very 1st donation, right ? This will trigger the avalanche mechanism. It's not easy to remember all 12 cards ordered correctly (6 x 2) which the dealer must do. So, if you have for example 7♣ 9♣ and the first flop card is an 8♣ - it's good to donate the minimum (assuming nobody donated earlier) which will be the same as telling the dealer: "Dealer, please look - It was me that had 7♣ 9♣ you probably remember because it was suited and quite well connected. This 1st card is good for me !" If you don't donate or donate too late the dealer will have problems remembering your cards. If the 2nd and 3rd flop cards are good for you also, it will be good to keep donating anything or even big (if others donate too) to keep your hole cards remembered and also to apply pressure on his sometimes very delicate decision (when the % difference is small).
again, where are the scientific articles that back this up?
man... that's not how that works at all
even if there was an advantage to donating more in the sense that the dealer was more likely to remember who won... that could be due to other factors than memory
primarily social factors
no actual scientist would treat this as anything other than noise
I really don't see the connection between social factors and free poker pot donations. For me, recalling and remembering information is more about memory.
For those who think that "never donate" is the optimal strategy, I would use the following comparison:
Imagine embers of the fire. You have to blow air into it to make fire again. And you have to make it a couple of times to make it work. It's the same thing as donating in my game, but the fire = correct memory. There obviously is a benefit for donating, there is always something in the pot.
like i said, memory is one of the most studied things in the world, go to scholar.google.com i'd be shocked if there aren't dozens of studies done on incentivized memory retention
you're trying to invent the wheel in the parking lot of car dealership
I'd rather focus on the game itself. My hypothesis is only an addition. THE POLL is supposed to take care of its correctness. Of course those two things are connected and I'm glad we can discuss both here, but still the game is more important. I don't want to go too deep into "memory" topic.
And about your comparison to inventing the wheel - I'm not sure if you mean the game or the hypothesis (or both) ? If you mean the game - well, if NLHE is a "perfect game" and there's nothing better or as good as, this would mean that the infinity is empty, because there are infinite number of possible poker games. So, for example there wouldn't be any intelligent life on other planets than Earth.
Anyway, I still believe in this game because the very 1st donation would be definitely made by someone, so further donations will be a matter of time.
Something tells me that for people like you, SCIENCE = FINDING KNOWLEDGE. While for me, SCIENCE = SEARCHING FOR KNOWLEDGE. I think this differs us.
i think you should be searching for a therapist
Keep voting, thank you 
Ok, you guys were right about the pot donations. Thanks everyone for your help, advice and cooperation 😀 I think we have it this time, here's the real new NL poker:
Is it time to celebrate now ??
(January 26th 2024, Author: G. Jakubowicz, Country: Poland)
