Jump to content


revolutionary idea


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

Poll: Agree or disagree with the following idea? (0 member(s) have cast votes)

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 23 February 2005 - 10:56 AM

I have an idea. Let me know if you guys think it's nuts, or not. It's just an idea, please do not curse my dead grandmother.How bout this:3-of-a-kind should only beat 2 over-pairs IF the player with three of a kind has a hole-pair.In other wordsFlop is: 3 K A 3 9Player 1: K's + A's (9 kicker)Player 2: trip 3's (with A,K kicker)In this case, player 2 would NOT win the pot.This will not change the game that much, but it will add a bit of strategy.This though came about after seemingly losing in a limit game with Aces and Kings to trip 2's when the board goes K A 8 2 2 and the other dude shows 2 4 offsuit. It is truly an awful feeling. I think this ruling would protect the better players more and protect the novices less. Thoughts?

#2 Devilkin

Devilkin

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 904 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Posted 23 February 2005 - 11:14 AM

If you have the guts (or lack of brains) to play a 24o that deep, you either deserve a big payoff or a broken stack.Dev

#3 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 23 February 2005 - 11:17 AM

I don't like that, though. I'd much rather make the game more polished. I'm not into "gambling" when I flop Aces and Kings. I would much rather "buy insurance" and ensure that I win the pot.

#4 Devilkin

Devilkin

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 904 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Posted 23 February 2005 - 11:20 AM

I disagree with this statement - AK is a good hand with a lot of potential, but it is not unbeatable.If you give some hands preference over others outside of the rank/suit of the cards, you totally redo the flavour of the game.Go ahead an implement it in your home game, but really I like hearing people play 24o - more times than not, they are paying you.Dev

#5 gregdon8

gregdon8

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 154 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 February 2005 - 11:38 AM

I am sorry but I dont see what you are looking to do. If you do that than you should also make it so that AA doesnt ever lose to KK, and so on. That is what the game of poker is. I am assuming you are a pretty good player so you should know that, his 24 off will pay you off more often than not. If i were you I would invite this guy to my table every night.

#6 PWetz00

PWetz00

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 38 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 23 February 2005 - 12:05 PM

Not sure what to really say here....After reading the proposed hand you put out. With 3 - 3 - X on flop..... Of course the player with trip 3s is going to dominate, and its the risk you take playing limit poker with huge over cards against that board. I regularly play limit hold em at the casino in town by me while waiting to get on NL..... It's ridiculous... I mean, as long as people have cards and chips in front of them they are sticking around. I feel your frustration with this... because I've been in enough pots playing that way to see some pretty horrible beats. What limit were you playing with the runner runner deuces? Maybe that's the problem... low limit game? One day last week, I finally gave in to the pressure of gettin killed on monster pre-flop hands when 8 people are calling the capped raises before they run the cards. Started playing 8-5 off.... crap like that on the button, and anything suited.... calling the minimum bets..... and just demolished the table. Was up almost $400 in 2 hours. I hated myself for playing like that, but I found that if I did not raise preflop.... everyone had called me.... if I had raised pre-flop... I'll bet 90% of the time it was capped with at least half the table playing. Just huge odds in my favor... calling a $3 bet to see a flop... If I miss, I fold and lose $3.... if I hit... I get paid like $40 alone on action (on flop alone) with 8-9 players calling a bet of $3-$6. Once I figured the math on that, it was a pretty easy game.Possible that person was hoping to bluff you out of the pot with that 2-4 hand? I've seen enough of that too... people thinking that the bluff is a devastating tool in low limit games..... And actually, it is devastating... because more often than not they're leaving broke. The thing that was the best about the day I tore up the limit game playing crap hands for cheap, that turned into the nuts... was that half the table was telling me how great I was at the game.... just ridiculous. I'm convinced that says more about their style of play than it does mine.I'd have to say no to your proposal... mainly because eventually people who play like crap will quit playing the game altogether if they don't win once in every 100 big pots. If they don't win once in a while... they won't keep desperately throwing in chips.
"You don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the slowest guy running from the bear."

#7 KDawgCometh

KDawgCometh

    old skool

  • Members
  • 15,174 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bebop
  • Interests:poker(duh), soccer, football, rugby, music, and film

Posted 23 February 2005 - 12:07 PM

this post makes no sense, I think your just bitter over a suckout. Keep the game as is

#8 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 23 February 2005 - 12:34 PM

I respect all your opinions. Sure, letting a fish win once in 100 is good, but when it happens to be a hand you have A's and K's on, and are pumping the pot, you will lose a large pot. Not fun. This was never a 'bad beat' in my book, and it's probably only happened a few times. But when it happens, it's like "come on..." It just doesn't seem like it's protecting the better players.Remember, I said they would win the pot if two of the 3-of-a-kind are in their pre-flop hand. In other words they hold 22 you hold AKflop comes AK2xx. They win. They hold 2 7 you hold AKflop comes AK922..... YOU WIN. Just a way of "protecting" the better players/hands. I'm not saying I'm for this yet. i haven't weighed it enough to come to a determination, I just wanted to hear your thoughts on it. Notice I haven't even voted yet. lol.keep the input coming. Remember, 99% of the good ideas throughout history have sounded utterly absurd at first. Also remember this post next time this happens to you. 8)

#9 The Ace of Jades

The Ace of Jades

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • Location:Peoria Heights, Ill

Posted 23 February 2005 - 12:36 PM

and while we're at it how about we the longer straight wins and the more colorful flush wins? And why not spades full of hearts?If you want to use two cards from your hand play omaha.

#10 ViperX883

ViperX883

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • Location:Owings, MD, USA

Posted 23 February 2005 - 01:07 PM

I have to disagree as well... part of what makes poker the game that it is is the fact that people can make poor plays and still strike it rich. Take that element out of the game, and you are likely to scare off some of the porrer players that your bankroll depends on. Also, this is not basketball or football, and stronger players are not quarterbacks. No one should be protected from taking a hard beat. Imagine this... you hold AKs in first position and raise. You get 5 callers. Now, BB is holding 72o, but he makes the call because he isgetting 13:1 on his money and the flop hits A77, with a K on the turn. Should he not get paid off just because he doesn't have "natural trips" despite that fact that he made the right call in the first place??? I definitely think not. Bad beats are part of the game... you just gotta suck it up and move on, taking solace in the fact that if you suffered a bad beat then you played the hand correctly.

#11

  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2005 - 01:26 PM

JFarrell20 said:

It just doesn't seem like it's protecting the better players.
what makes u assume the guy playing AK is a "better" player than the guy playing 24 in your example?it may protect the tighter players who play higher cards... but whats the point of that?

#12 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 23 February 2005 - 01:32 PM

The Ace of Jades said:

and while we're at it how about we the longer straight wins and the more colorful flush wins? And why not spades full of hearts?If you want to use two cards from your hand play omaha.
OR we could just do away with straights, because, remember, those were not added until about 150 years ago I believe. I wonder if your great-great-great grandpappy was posting in the local saloon about this apocolyptic new idea in poker called "straights"? Don't be such a sarcastic purist. I'm just trying to spark up discussion. Remember me next time you lose two pairs to an underset.

#13 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 23 February 2005 - 01:34 PM

xafofo said:

JFarrell20 said:

It just doesn't seem like it's protecting the better players.
what makes u assume the guy playing AK is a "better" player than the guy playing 24 in your example?it may protect the tighter players who play higher cards... but whats the point of that?
Just away to minimize the luck a little more, and maximize skill. Maybe you need the luck, I don't know.

#14 The Ace of Jades

The Ace of Jades

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • Location:Peoria Heights, Ill

Posted 23 February 2005 - 02:03 PM

Hey, if it weren't for luck, I'd lose every hand.And don't worry, I'll think of you everytime I beat two overpairs with an underset.

#15 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 23 February 2005 - 03:13 PM

The Ace of Jades said:

And don't worry, I'll think of you everytime I beat two overpairs with an underset.
Sure, but the point is, that a good player will not play a crap starting hand and end up getting lucky with an underset against two pairs nearly as much as he will make two pairs and end up losing to a crappy underset when the dude flips 3 8 offsuit... again..protecting the wiser players. I have no idea why that is such a bad idea?Don't you get it? If you are smart enough to not play craptastic starting hands then you will not administer this beat (crappy underset vs. two over-pairs) nearly as much as it will be administered to you, in the long run. That's what we're all playing for, the long run, right?

#16 NormanHaupt

NormanHaupt

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,267 posts

Posted 23 February 2005 - 03:16 PM

While we're at changing the rules.. lets make a small straight, 4 in a row, beat a pair.OH, and flushes, make it 6 to a flush but they beat full boats
Suddenly I turned around
And she was standin' there
With silver bracelets on her wrists
And flowers in her hair.
She walked up to me so gracefully
And took my crown of thorns.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

#17 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 23 February 2005 - 04:12 PM

NormanHaupt said:

While we're at changing the rules.. lets make a small straight, 4 in a row, beat a pair.OH, and flushes, make it 6 to a flush but they beat full boats
I'm not talking about adding hands. I'm just putting a slight variation on the rule. Why don't you answer me why an ace can be played as high, AND as low before you knock this thought? Where's the logic in that? How bout next time you make a wheel straight, you lose, because you, personally, are only able to play a straight as high.

#18 The Ace of Jades

The Ace of Jades

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • Location:Peoria Heights, Ill

Posted 23 February 2005 - 11:13 PM

that the game. don't like it? Play somethin else. You aren't gonna change a rule so why bother bitching about it?If you're worried about the underset why don't we just get rid of the turn and river? If you don't flop it, you don't get it.Or how about you just play guts? Only two cards involved in that if I remember correctly.

#19 dominiksdad

dominiksdad

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 96 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 24 February 2005 - 04:25 AM

JFarrell20 said:

xafofo said:

JFarrell20 said:

It just doesn't seem like it's protecting the better players.
what makes u assume the guy playing AK is a "better" player than the guy playing 24 in your example?it may protect the tighter players who play higher cards... but whats the point of that?
Just away to minimize the luck a little more, and maximize skill. Maybe you need the luck, I don't know.
Luck is what keeps the fish coming back for more.Why would you want to introduce a rule to drive them out of the game???
If it wasn't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all.

#20 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 24 February 2005 - 07:23 AM

This wouldn't drive a single soul from the game. Fish aren't smart enough to know that this doesn't protect them anyway.And to the guy from illinois...calm down bro. You're treating me like a Jehovah's Witness knocking at your door. I obviously love this game, which is why I care enough about it to actually philosophize about it, and not just sit at home in my underwear stuffing my face with popcorn watching old WSOP re-runs on ESPN classic yelling "Yeah, BABY!"OK, I do that, too.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users