The Most Skillful Form of Poker III

In the recent World Series of Poker no-limit hold'em main event, which determines poker's world champion, none of the nine players who made the final table had ever made the final table of this event before. The winner, Robert Varkonyi (a fellow MIT alumnus), had never won any money in a World Series event. What a nice way to start.

Even more remarkable was that all of the "favorite" players fell by the wayside. None of the former world champions and well-known WSOP millionaires who entered even made it into the money (45 places were paid). As I browsed down the list of winners, the first name I recognized was Phil Ivey, who finished in 23rd place.

What are the odds that none of the 40 or so former world champions/WSOP millionaires who entered would finish in the money of a 600-plus player event? In a chess tournament, all of the top 40 players would often finish in the top 45 places.

What are the odds of none of the top players (including Tiger) finishing in the top nine places of a major golf tournament? What are the odds of none of the top seeds making it to the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open or Wimbledon tennis championship? Certainly, "skill-responsiveness" (the correlation between skill and success) is a prime factor.

In chess, the best players win almost all of the time. In tennis, golf, and bridge, the several best players win most of the time. But occasionally a new face emerges. There is some luck in most games of skill.

However, there is a lot of luck in poker! One of the reasons why poker is so popular is that anybody can win on a good day – and the world's best poker player can easily lose on a bad day. Can anything be done to increase the skill-responsiveness of poker – especially in the one event each year that crowns the world champion? What is the most skill-responsive form of poker?

Twelve years ago, I wrote my first column on "The Most Skillful Form of Poker" (Card Player, June 29, 1990, or Best of Cappelletti, Page 36). In that column, I discussed the "bigger-is-better" human tendency that makes no-limit the ultimate form of poker, but then proceeded to give several reasons why I believed no-limit poker was not the most skill-responsive form of poker.

I then suggested that the most skillful form of poker would be a hybrid, with before-the-flop raises limited to two or three times the big blind (which would do away with going all in before the flop), pot-limit play on the flop, and then no-limit play on the turn and river.

In the mid-'90s, when "Las Vegas Night" gambling was legal in Prince George's County, Maryland, at my suggestion, two poker rooms ran their weekly tournaments using these (what they called) "Cavern Rules." It was well-received by the better players, although at that time the general clientele was "more comfortable" with the usual limit poker.

In my June 4, 1993, Card Player column (or see Best of Cappelletti, Page 41), "The Most Skillful Form of Poker II," I again beat the drum for trying the modified no-limit rules (Cavern Rules) stated above.

In that column, I quoted a 1993 Bob Ciaffone column, "In the years to come, poker must improve by offering new betting structures. These should incorporate the good points of both pot-limit and limit play into a good blend. A couple of examples would be to use limit play before the flop and pot-limit afterward …" Clearly, we were thinking along the same lines.

Perhaps the most skill-negating aspect of no-limit hold'em is that it is often "correct" (and clearly the best percentage play) to go all in before the flop. But even if you have a 2-to-1 edge (and often it is more of a coin toss), you will lose fairly often! Most of my exits from no-limit hold'em tournaments have occurred because my big pocket pair (or A-K) failed to hold up. When there is limit betting before the flop, good players will survive longer, since they can judge their prospects better after seeing the flop.

Although it is quite sporting to play in an event in which most everybody has some chance to win, it seems appropriate to play the most skill-responsive version of the game – whereby expert skill has the most significant impact – when crowning the world champion. And it would be highly preferable to look back at great plays made rather than at who lucked out.