Should operators try to reduce variance in poker?
Barry Carter looks at some of the latest innovations that take the variance out of poker and asks whether it is good for the game.
This week we got news that PokerStars were set to launch perhaps their most polarising game innovation, All-In Cashout. When two or more players are all-in they have the option to take their equity as a cash value, minus an admin fee which is 1% of that equity. Just a week before the GGNetwork introduced bubble protection for players who register early. Up to 10 players who bought in before the start of the tournament could get their money back if they bust in one of the ‘bubble’ positions.
I suggested this will be a polarising move for PokerStars, and it will be, but neither of these innovations are new to poker. Bubble Insurance has been around for years on the live circuit and a few years ago Chris Moorman fronted a business which offered this for online tournaments. All-in insurance has also been around in live cash games forever (Phil Hellmuth always gets it on cash game shows, for example).
This year has been a remarkable year for operators trying new things, perhaps most notably partypoker who are experimenting with banning HUDs, forced screen name changes, no downloadable hand histories, real names at high stakes tables and much more. All of which they have come under fire for from some corners of the poker community and been lavished with praise from others.
My view on these new variance reducing systems are the same I have for the changes at partypoker. I don’t necessarily agree with them but I’m OK with them happening, perhaps mostly because the entire industry will learn from the findings. I think as players we are too quick to criticise change and assume that tinkering with the game we know is a bad thing.
Having said that, I am now about to criticise change, just a little bit.
Luck is why poker is fun and profitable
Every few years somebody proposes a form of poker with ‘no bad beats’ and the idea never gets off the ground. The idea hits upon a very real pain point in this game, which is that the variance is brutal. I should know, I cowrote The Mental Game of Poker, a book made necessary precisely because the luck aspect of poker can cause tremendous stress.
However, as we argue ad nauseum in the book, variance is also what makes poker fun and profitable. Recreational players enjoy the game because the luck element allows them to beat the professionals now and then. Professional poker players win at poker because recreational players have enough ‘winning moments’ to keep on playing enough to lose to the professionals in the long run. And the pain of losing does make the joy of winning all the more sweet.
If you are a professional player and you can make the most of a third party insurance policy that, for example, pays you in EV rather than cash, without paying a premium, then it's a great deal. My concerns are specifically about operators offering it as part of their games.
I think there are a lot of players that will enjoy Bubble Protection and All-In Cash Out. It might even be precisely the thing that gets a number of down on their luck recreational players to keep on playing a little longer when their natural time with the game is coming to an end. Bubble Protection is something of a Red Herring in that it essentially just moves the bubble a few places for some players. However, the pain of bubbling is real and I can see how this will appeal to plenty of players.
A worthwhile experiment
All-In Cash Out is optional, the board runout happens no matter what and is not impacted by whether you take it. So if you are not interested in it you can just ignore it. It will affect how the other people at your table play, however. This could be a good thing, we might see more money going in the middle of the table generally as there is less fear of getting felted.
So my official position on All-in Cash Out is let’s give it a fair crack of the whip and I’ll be happy to be proven wrong. We’ve never seen it offered on such a mass scale before so it’s going to be an interesting experiment to witness.
I just cannot help but think that if we interfere too much with the variance in this game we might turn it into chess, where casual players would never play against better opposition, or get the chance to beat them.
What do you think of this format? Let us know in the comments:
