Logical warfare within a sick concept
This is a real mind-twister (!!!!)
I really have quit designing new poker variants for the sake of my mental health and because of finding a new passion - breaking codes, but a couple of minutes ago something told me: "Come on, take the deck, take the deck ...". So I took my deck of cards and this is the result. Check - this - out:
> Imagine an "Undefined NLHE cash game". The players will play, but it is not defined whether it's a real money game or play money game.
> The worst (weaker) hand wins the pot.
> If after the session the money isn't transferred to the winners, people who won the most chips have won the game.
> If after the session the money is transferred to the winners, the results are reversed which means PROFIT becomes LOSS and LOSS becomes PROFIT.
It may sound like a simple thing, but in the end we get something like this:
>> Players will try to hit as strong hand as possible (like in normal NLHE) until the showdown where they will want their hand to be as weak as possible.
And here's why:
>>> The rules are telling you that: "You should try to make worse hands than your opponents to win the most chips", while the logical thinking is telling you that: "It's better to hit strong hands because if the money is transferred, you'll be the one with the profit in the end". And because the logic comes first - during the hand and the showdown rules are executed later, the order is switched, because the rules have the priority here. Logical thinking is also telling you that: "Probably no money will be transferred at all" which is also confusing because play money is like something unfinished or imaginary - just as trying to hit the best hand is. The last reason is that the game has a status of "undefined", so both scenarios are possible.
I don't know what to think of this, it must be a truly crazy experience to play this considering that thinking about it is already quite crazy.
21 Replies
To make it even more twisted, it's actually impossible to try to hit the best hand and build the pot as big as possible to lose the most chips. If you try to do that, others may fold and you'll end up winning the pot instead of losing, so you get the result opposite to your true goal. That is also why playing for the best hand lasts only until the showdown. This strategy is in fact an illusion which exists (as an illusion).
People who play for the weaker hand and end the session with profit (weaker hands always win the showdown), probably won't agree to make the money transfer, so this strategy has the priority here over the "moneymaker" strategy. You can't say that: "It's just a play money game in the end" because money transfer is allowed and as legitimate as no transfer.
Also, trying to read your opponents is impossible since their intentions are theoretically somewhat split in two, especially from your perspective. So even when you see a very strong hand that belongs to your opponent during the showdown, you still don't know whether he was trying to lose more chips or make you fold to win the pot.
I think that's a little bit sick.
So players aren't obligated to pay up if they lose?
Why would the winning players agree not to get paid?
IF:
Conflict = play money scenario (unpaid)
Agreement (unanimity) = real money scenario (transfer)
Play money scenario has priority here because the unanimity isn't required. The whole thing is more like a play money game, but due to the fact that it's "undefined", some players would prefer to play for strong hands and be 100% safe in terms of potential loss.
It is always play money because the losing players won't pay. There is no ambiguity. There is no reason to hedge.
Fun play money hand i play recently:
PokerStars - P500 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4
Hero (BTN): 100 BB
SB: 155 BB
BB: 69.79 BB
UTG: 167.47 BB
MP: 84.68 BB
CO: 146.4 BB
SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB
Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has 9♠ K♣
fold, MP calls 1 BB, fold, Hero raises to 5 BB, SB calls 4.5 BB, fold, MP calls 4 BB
Flop: (16 BB, 3 players) 2♠ A♠ 9♣
SB checks, MP bets 5 BB, Hero calls 5 BB, fold
Turn: (26 BB, 2 players) T♣
MP bets 9 BB, Hero calls 9 BB
River: (44 BB, 2 players) 7♦
MP bets 14 BB, Hero raises to 81 BB and is all-in, MP calls 51.68 BB and is all-in
Hero shows 9♠ K♣ (One Pair, Nines)
(Pre 35%, Flop 18%, Turn 5%)
MP shows A♥ T♠ (Two Pair, Aces and Tens)
(Pre 65%, Flop 82%, Turn 95%)
MP wins 165.72 BB, Hero wields axe, MP '..wtf dude', Hero wins 165.72 BB
I think this game would be pure and unpredictable chaos in terms of strategy and definitely not just a random lottery (LIVE tables only of course, no online).
Sometimes it would be better to play for strong hands and lose chips. Imagine that in the middle of the night you get a phone call and your friend who played with you the previous day starts the conversation with:
"Hey man, what's up, how are you ? I was thinking a lot about our last game and the money that you theoretically owe me ..... "
It's just a peaceful phone call, nothing more, but it's just better to be on the other side I think.
Instructions unclear: all the players are fighting eachother
Same problem occurs with our universe - instructions unclear whether we are alone or not. Same issue, just on a bigger scale.
The same problem occurs in poker when "trash talking" takes place. You can lose a lot of money at a live table if opponent is distracting you with his "speech". It kind of works the same way as this undefined game - someone psychologically forces you to give him your money.
My concept is a human factor applied with even greater strength than trash talking, but who knows, maybe it's not a game for everyone.
But I think it's good that when you try to win real money here by losing chips, you automatically risk losing more even when having worst possible hand, like 7 high.
Same problem occurs with our universe - instructions unclear whether we are alone or not.
Errr.. instructions not unclear. Repeat: not unclear
Spoiler
This new concept is balance between good and evil.
I think Ceres could outplay anyone as long the play money result is considered because his win rate can occasionally reach super high level.
If I told you my winrate you'd probably steal it..
The problem with this game, Deuces, is that most players would probably say to themselves, “Hey, this is just some nonsense made up game, why don’t we play something else?”. And that would be the end of that.
Besides, the cards shouldn’t really matter if the premise is to make the most money. Right? Acquiring coin is just a different area of expertise altogether. And that’s only half the equation. Once you learn that, you still need to learn how to be rich.
Poker isn't all about the money. You can do crazy and unbelievable things against smart AI in a tournament mode.
Poker is precisely all about the money.
