vpFREE2 Forums

World Series of Video Poker (WSOVP)?

For fun, I've come up with a "format" for a TV series
about video
poker … similar to the WSOP but (naturally) different. TV works
for
poker and blackjack … why not VP? Actually there are some good
reasons "why not". For starters, VP doesn't pit one
player against
another. Also, VP is played so fast viewers can't see what's
happening. Therefore I had to tweak the normal rules and procedures,
as I'll explain.

Here are the "goals" that (hopefully) will make it
interesting to TV
viewers.

1. It must take great skill to win (not just luck). That means
players are penalized for card selection errors.
2. People who play fast should have an advantage over slower
players. That means rewarding faster play and penalizing slow play.
3. Players should compete in small groups, with the best overall
player in a group the winner. Each player is trying to defeat the
other players in his group. I think 6-8 in a group is about right.
4. Players need to know how they stand, relative to other players,
while the contest is underway. And the TV viewers too. To do this,
each player's score is displayed for everyone to see.
5. There should be a substantial entry fee … as in the WSOP. On
a
$1 machine ($5 max bet) I think $3000 is about right (maybe $2000).

I envision 6-8 flattops, in a row, with a screen clearly visible to
all players (and the TV audience). Each player's score, number
of
errors, and average playing speed, is displayed on the screen.

To begin, a contest judge selects the specific VP game to be played.
The choices might be JorB, DDBP, Deuces Wild, and Joker Poker. Multi-
Strike might be a choice too. Contestants won't know in advance
which game is chosen. Pay schedules for each game are published well
ahead of the contest so players can practice the games.

The betting amount would start at $1 ($5 max bet) and increase with
each round of play until an overall champion is determined. Losing
players can't cash in their remaining credits at the end of a
round.
Losers leave broke, just like they do in the WSOP.

The winning player in a group is the one with the highest credit
total at the end of a round. He/she advances to the next round
against the winning players in other groups. In the 2nd round (and
subsequent rounds) players begin with their total win (total credits)
from the previous round. In the final round, the winner is the one
with the most credits, which he/she keeps. After 4-5 rounds it
should be quite a large sum.

Now, here's a big change in the rules. For each game played the
max-
bet ($5 for a $1 game in round 1) is ADDED to a player's credits
(not
subtracted as in regular VP). For example, if a player plays 1000
games in a round he/she will earn $5000 in credits ($5 x 1000). This
is how players are rewarded for playing fast, or penalized for
playing slowly.

When a player makes an error (bad choice of held cards) his/her total
credits are reduced by 33% and this amount is distributed equally
among the other players. For example, if a player has $5000 in
credits and makes an error then $1750 is deducted from his/her
credits and 1/7 ($250) added to each of the other players (if there
are 8 players). On the 3rd error, if it occurs, all remaining
credits are disbursed equally to the other players and that player
automatically loses and stops playing. This is how players are
rewarded for accurate play, or penalized for poor play.

So, the winner has to be both skillful and speedy, and probably lucky
too. But luck is not necessary if all the other players are
disqualified due to their errors, or one player is both extremely
fast and accurate. A player can be very lucky but still lose if they
make 3 errors. If all players are very fast, and very accurate, then
luck comes into play. If a player makes a RF (or a couple very rare
hands) I don't think they can just "sit tight" until the
round ends
because a fast and skillful player might overtake them.

I think a "round" should be about 2 hours, but this would be
shortened for TV viewing, just as in the WSOP. If it turns out that
players make too many errors, it may be necessary to allow more than
3 errors. A player must play fast, but not so fast that they start
making errors.

Would this be interesting to watch? Can anyone think of a way to
improve this?

For fun, I've come up with a "format" for a TV series

Can anyone think of a way to

improve this?

I don't think you mentioned this, but I think all tournaments ,
when possible, should have the same cards dealt to all of the
players, so that it does become a game of skill and takes luck out
of the pictures.

dwk

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@y...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000"
<deuceswild1000@y...> wrote:

>
> For fun, I've come up with a "format" for a TV series
Can anyone think of a way to
> improve this?

I don't think you mentioned this, but I think all tournaments ,
when possible, should have the same cards dealt to all of the
players, so that it does become a game of skill and takes luck out
of the pictures.

I don't think this would really work. If the DRAWS are still
different from individual to individual, then the results would
still diverge widely. As a test of skill, it stinks: you and I are
each dealt 3378J, with a four-flush; if we each draw to the flush
then it's quite possible one of us will be substantially ahead of
the other at the end of the hand, without either of us having done
anything wrong. In fact, if you keep the 3's instead, and I miss the
flush, then you might go ahead of me on the hand not only DESPITE
your mistake, but BECAUSE of it.
Therefore, for fairness' sake, everybody should get the same result
for the same draw. But how much fun would that be to watch on the
vast majority of hands? Most hands are "duh" obvious to play. And if
you got a whole panel of skilled VP players, everyone would play
identically, and everybody would be tied at the end of the game! The
only way to win, then, would be to purposely play badly on at least
SOME hands.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@y...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" > >

I don't think this would really work. If the DRAWS are still
different from individual to individual, then the results would
still diverge widely. As a test of skill, it stinks:

Ok, so what do you suggest as a measure of skill rather than luck?

This wouldn't replace luck with skill in any meaningful way.
Tournaments are always abbreviated affairs, short events either by
time or hands. In such circumstances, luck will always carry a
magnified significance. Just last week, I sat next to a fella who,
like me, was playing dw. He held a 2+A and drew three 2's for the
ducks. I played rather better strategy for about three hours. No
ducks.

Pete

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" wrote

I don't think you mentioned this, but I think all tournaments ,
when possible, should have the same cards dealt to all of the
players, so that it does become a game of skill and takes luck out
of the pictures.

This wouldn't replace luck with skill in any meaningful way.
Tournaments are always abbreviated affairs, short events either by
time or hands. In such circumstances, luck will always carry a
magnified significance.

Same question I asked Rock, what do you suggest?

Just last week, I sat next to a fella who,

like me, was playing dw. He held a 2+A and drew three 2's for the
ducks. I played rather better strategy for about three hours. No
ducks.

Pete

Does't that just make you do a slow burn?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "paisonvp" <paison@i...> wrote:

deal down to the bottom of the deck and reshuffle discards if you need
extra cards to finish play, like they used to do blackjack
that would work
of course you'd find that only the top skilled players would win and
pretty soon no one else would enter
that's why most tournaments today are largely luck
and that's why texas hold'em is the top draw and not 5 card draw poker
or bridge

wrote:

> This wouldn't replace luck with skill in any meaningful way.
> Tournaments are always abbreviated affairs, short events either

by

> time or hands. In such circumstances, luck will always carry a
> magnified significance.

Same question I asked Rock, what do you suggest?

Just last week, I sat next to a fella who,
> like me, was playing dw. He held a 2+A and drew three 2's for

the

> ducks. I played rather better strategy for about three hours.

No

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "paisonvp" <paison@i...> wrote:
> ducks.
>
> Pete

Does't that just make you do a slow burn?

Just last week, I sat next to a fella who,
> like me, was playing dw. He held a 2+A and drew three 2's for

the

> ducks. I played rather better strategy for about three hours.

No

> ducks.
  
Does't that just make you do a slow burn?

Nope, my burn is instant and fierce. It's one of the principal
reasons I never carry firearms in a casino. :slight_smile:

Pete