Why don't you remove the element of luck in poker?

Question

There are many examples of players doing the right thing and losing anyways.

So, why don't you just change the rules, so that the players doing the right thing receive some extra compensation? It's supposed to be a game about skill, not luck right? And we are the ones making the rules, so why not get rid of the luck?

Let's say I've been to showdown with one other player, who pushes all in after the turn. I correctly deduce using my skills that I have the best hand and 99% probability of winning. I call, but the other player catches their winning card on the river.

In this case, I played it best, but the other player wins because of luck. So why not just change the rules to remove the luck, at least to some degree?

Here's one candidate for a solution:

In the above all-in situation, as I had a 99% chance of winning, in the case I lose, I should only lose 99% of the pot! Genius, right?

Answer 1

In general, if you remove luck from the game, it becomes much more difficult to win money. This is because the average poker player thinks they are better then average. Mathematically this cannot possibly be true, so therefore many players think they are better than they actually are, and the reason they can continue to believe that is sometimes they get lucky against better players and win, thus validating their thinking. For example, if you take a game that has very little luck, like chess for example, you will not find many average players willing to bet money on a game against grand masters, or if they do, after they get crushed they probably won't do it again. In poker though, average players are fine with playing against great players over and over again even though they statistically have a very low chance of winning, because they still will win every once in a while due to luck.

Answer 2

Some are trying to do something very similar to what you are suggesting - check out Protection Poker.

Seems like a terrible idea to me as the chance element of the game is what keeps bad players coming back. If variance was significantly reduced, the average standard would increase and that's not good for anyone.

Plus in the extreme case of always chopping all-in pots exactly on each player's equity, there's the practical issue of doing the calculations. This would be relatively trivial online, but live it would likely be a nightmare.

Answer 3

Bad players often blame bad luck for bad play.

The proper answer is bankroll management. Bad beats happen. Have enough money in your bankroll to absorb the variance.

Some games will allow you to run the board multiple time to reduce variance.

You can buy insurance if someone will sell it. Say on the river you are all in and your opponent has 9 outs on a flush draw. You are a 4.11 : 1 favorite. If the pot is $400 someone may offer you insurance for $100 for the .11 juice. You pay them $100 and if you lose they pay the $400 pot to you from their stack.

What is actually more used is layoff (and at the table often improperly called insurance). Another player will buy 1/2 the $400 pot for $50. If you win you get $250 and if you lose you get $50. It keeps you in the game.

Answer 4

If man remove the element of luck in poker, it won't have so much fun! I think the most attractive point of poker is that you don't know if you will win though you get much information.