[Closed] Reverse Poker: Finding the rules

my brain hurts but the idea is awesome must try

tbh I'm still trying to work out how exactly it works, and how you could possibly win (or lose, as it were)...complicated concept ^^

Essentially I want the rules to be solid enough so I can have live omaha games with this concept.

"I only have 8 high on the flop - but need to fold due to having 13 outs to the nut straight and 2 backdoor flushdraws - simply too much equity against his range - even if he might have two pair or even a set"

♦

We already discussed that while driving home from work. I think we should just try it to find out if it works.

In SnGs you need negative blinds and ante imo, that way you collect chips when you don't play any hands.

maybe you can organise somewhere a freerol :)) like that . :))

And the game to play should be Razz than Holdem. So you will make your worst hand and loose and the chips.

Cheers,

Thiago

playing this as a heads up game would be awsome but any other way reaches alot of complications. For example you get a 3-way pot post flop and 1 player folds the other 2 obviously arnt going to fold. I suppose the position that you enter into the hand could be a huge thing to think about would love to see if you can make it work.

Originally posted by hyppolito
And the game to play should be Razz than Holdem. So you will make your worst hand and loose and the chips.

Cheers,

Thiago

I think not playing Razz but Hold'em is the fun part about it since it makes it a lot more complicated - which is good. The rules should be the same imo - just the point of trying to lose chips instead of gaining them should be reversed.

Tribun explain how your negative blind/ante structure would work^^

already found a shc for this game made by bender834 thought id post it here where believe or not it actually has atleast some relevance.

Originally posted by SoyCD
...
While the first thought was "easy open shove" it soon became clear that if all players were thinking players - everyone would fold and you'd be the chipleader. It also became quickly evident that raising in general represented a bad idea (especially post-flop) since you would probably get the pot - unless someone else was holding a really bad hand. We therefore realized we would have to tweak the concept before having something we could perhaps institute in a live game sometime.
...

I liked ur first version of the game. I dont understand your argument why raising should be a bad idea. It doesnt matter whether u want to win or loose a lot of chips, u need to get money in the pot. The first one out wins the prize so u have to get rid of ur chips as fast as possible. Still pushing all in might not be the best idea.

Of course the starting hands are more like razz, but there will be enough crapy hands who are competing for the low and want to loose chips.

In a first thinking:

Raising pre-flop is ok if you are facing loose players (will play lots of good hands), otherwise, calling is better.
Post-flop, check-calling is always better than betting, except when facing high-ATS passive players.
Reraising is never ok - it will show that you have a good hand, and folding will always be good for your opponent unless they hold 23o non-paired.

@SirBlueByte: Raising is bad because fold equity is a horrible thing in this game. You don't want the pot, it's always better to give away the initiative. (But anyway, the one with the initiative is the one who decides to call or not).

It's a game with optimal strategy: limp every hand with equity bellow the average (the BB) and check/fold or check/call unimproved all the way to the river.
(If cash and with regular blind structure)

Originally posted by SirBlueByte

Originally posted by SoyCD
...
While the first thought was "easy open shove" it soon became clear that if all players were thinking players - everyone would fold and you'd be the chipleader. It also became quickly evident that raising in general represented a bad idea (especially post-flop) since you would probably get the pot - unless someone else was holding a really bad hand. We therefore realized we would have to tweak the concept before having something we could perhaps institute in a live game sometime.
...

I liked ur first version of the game. I dont understand your argument why raising should be a bad idea. It doesnt matter whether u want to win or loose a lot of chips, u need to get money in the pot. The first one out wins the prize so u have to get rid of ur chips as fast as possible. Still pushing all in might not be the best idea.

Of course the starting hands are more like razz, but there will be enough crapy hands who are competing for the low and want to loose chips.

Well we realized that using plain poker rules - betting gets punished. Sure you want to get your chips into the pot - but in regular Poker one of the points of betting is to win the chips currently already in the middle. In our reverse rules Poker - this is exactly the opposite - so you DONT want to get the chips that are currently in the middle. Everytime you bet you give your opponent a chance to fold and therefore increase your chipstack. Therefore it would never make sense to re-raise in this game - not even while holding the ultimative nuts - since your opponent can just fold and thus increase your chipstack (instead you would always just call-down).

The thought process was therefore to also reverse the regular poker rules and give the chips in the middle to those people that fold - instead of the person that bets. This way you can actually bet your strong hands without collecting the pot and thus achieving the opposite of what you wanted (get rid of your chips). This makes it a lot more interesting if you ask me - since you can actually re-raise when you have a very weak hand etc.

there should also be a penalty for folding a hand pre flop or else it gets too darn easy pre flop

It is rather complicated since you need to make pots for every street and every raise. Otherwise how will you devide the pot when some fold PF, on the Flop and the River, e.g. Also when one folds the bet and the other folds to the raise the other to the 3-bet.

I wouldn't like to be the dealer in your game

the game would stop as soon as the payout structure stops if it was a MTT.
it would only work as a cash game.
you have have to reverse the game completely, everything would have to b in minus IMO.

In tourneys it'd have to be played in Fixed Limit format, as playing it in NL wouldn't make sense. For example, in a SnG it would be always +$EV to call a push after 2 people called it, and in EP it would almost be mandatory to push, to avoid ending out of the money.

Of course, once the first players busted, tourney would stop, which would be even a good thing (no waste of time). ♦

For cashgame it would be a bit strange. You would have to buy-in for a fixed amount, and once you get to zero, poker room should pay you the double of your BI. Having the double of your buy-in would have to be considered as being all-in, and you would need to rebuy to lose some chips.

Cashgame could be played in all formats IMO (NL, FL, PL).

Preflop rules will be the most complicated, I can't think of anything that makes sense. ♦

And another thing would be rules for situations like: UTG bets, MP2 raises, MP3 3-bets, UTG folds, MP2 folds... As mentioned, there would have to be a lot of separate pots.

Edit: How would be rake taken (in cashgame)? Casino adding some % of chips to the pot? ♦

last post was month ago, anybody found somethnig?

Some my thoughts:
Final pot splits to all except of winner
Everybody posts BB except of SB (no change here) and BB who posts nothnig (but can be sure that will recieve some chips if fold)

I realy don't know why I'm writing this post. It looks I have realy nothing to do ♦

Simple, bet at the pot with the intention of the other player taking the chips. But... replace "folding" with "admitting to having a hand" whoever admits they have a hand takes the pot. First player to bust out wins ♦

Would be a better game as PL, would get too crazy as NL.

Originally posted by SoyCD
So on the way back from work we were discussing how a tournament (or perhaps cashgame) would function if we were to turn around the pay-out structure (First to bust gets first place, second to bust second place, etc...) and what kind of strategy would be best applicable here.

While the first thought was "easy open shove" it soon became clear that if all players were thinking players - everyone would fold and you'd be the chipleader. It also became quickly evident that raising in general represented a bad idea (especially post-flop) since you would probably get the pot - unless someone else was holding a really bad hand. We therefore realized we would have to tweak the concept before having something we could perhaps institute in a live game sometime.

#1: Same Poker hand rules apply
#2: Goal is to lose your chips and bust first
#3: Open folding is not allowed (at least not postflop)

#4: So that betting doesn't turn into something that makes 0 sense we have to change the rules slightly. If a hand reaches a showdown then the best hand gets the pot (and therefore essentially loses). Yet if someone bets and another player folds - the player who folds gets the pot. If a player bets and several players who fold - those players who folded split the pot.

This means if you have showdown value you want to either get out of the hand quickly or get your opponents to fold by betting (and representing that you have air). This would lead to interesting spots such as

"I doubt he is only re-raising me with air here - if he didnt have showdown value he would have checked behind - my bottom pair might still be beaten here"

or situations where you have to check whether your draw is weak enough to call with the given pot odds.

In general this would have to be played in either FL or at the most PL format. (Especially interesting in FL --> Do I have little enough equity against his range to call here? ♦)

Current problems:
#1: What kind of Ante/Blind format and pre-flop rules would work best here
#2: How to best use these rules in cash games
Discuss!

I think this is a pretty cool idea. I would play this if it happened.

Awesome idea, heres what ive come up with,

- obviously raising is out of the question as everyone will fold to you
- betting after the flop is bad as people will always fold
- limping is fine with crappy hands, and checking down rest
- i don't think theres a way to exploit this, if you limp aswell with crap, you both are more likely to flop nothing
- hmmmmm... sb steals?? always complete with below avg hands??
or just fold them? interesting....
- if the blinds are high, and the next round you put yourself in position to get emiminated i might do it.
- taking the appropriate amount of time if you want the blinds to raise at an appropriate time.
- there would be two ways to play this game, passively and agressively
- passively = never any bets always folded to the bb, would just be a timing game, so blinds increase at strategic times.
-agressively = people with bad hands so all-in, others may call with other bad hands, basically flipping either for the win or for a tie.

lets look at some example hands (lol)

Everybody folds to MP3 he goes all-in and there are 3 consecutive all-ins you have JJ in the BB should you call?
I guess so? if you dont, you are almost definately not going to make the money. (btw who would get 1st, 2nd and 3rd if they all had the same no. of chips and get eliminated in the same hand??)

You are sitting in MP1 and a player UTG goes all-in on the first hand. you have T9s. Should you call?
I guess so? if you fold and 3 other players call, you wont make the money. if you do call, plenty other players will have to call with better hands (lol), otherwise they wont make the money.

Then, why shouldn't you not go all-in on the first hand? i don't know? im confused?

what if everyone went all-in then, 1 player wins and 9 lose, who gets the money??????

then is it better to play the passive way? i dont think so its easily exploitable, because then the CO, BU, SB and BB, would auto all-in giving them a roughly 1/4 chance of not making the money (pretty good). what if you have 99+, you could fold in the last 4 positions and wait for a better spot because you know that there will be another spot still to claim. i cant really calculate which is better because i dont know what the payout structure is if 3 players bust at the same time.

Ultimatley, you should go all-in first hand no matter what otherwise you forfiet your chance to make the money because if 4 players end up all-in you pretty much lose. Nothing else makes sense. Then we pretty much run into the problem of sho gets the money if 3+ players all lose at the same time.

That may have been quite incomprehensible, but hey i'm just as confused as you are. Hopefully that made a shread of sense to you.