Topic: "Unfold" button in poker. Would that work? (Read 2019 times)

That's a good point. Probably first step is to define what's the desired outcome, meaning how the game should look if unfold is implemented.

I reckon if any poker site ever launched 'holdem unfold' and it turned popular, there will probably be few different tables with different unfold cost. Lower cost for small-stake tables for amateurs, where the goal is to make the game more fun, luck-based and less strategical and higher cost for more advanced players.

For the sake of discussion, lets aim for the balanced approach ('unfold' used not too often but not too rarely). I would set the goal as:

For the ~5 (active) players ring game - the desired use of unfold is once every ~5 hands.

Or maybe it's better to tackle it from the different angle and balance the cost in a way that it's attractive for the specific scenario? Example:

Players:
A- has a hand from the group 4 or higher
B- folds 3,7
C- lets ignore him

Flop: 2,6,7

Let's assume no straight/flush draws and that A knows B is not bluffing.

now set a goal as cost being low enough for B to unfold and yet high enough for A to stay in the game even if B makes a small bet afterwards?

I'm not "determined not to run simulations", it's quite the opposite. It's just I have zero experience in this kind of things and I'm not sure how to do it properly. Any suggestions welcomed.


That interesting. But there's a big risk that the betting-war would happen only very rarely, effectively making the cost just too low and (as per Light's post) causing the over-use of the unfold option.

Other thing - would it make sense for A and B to engage in betting war in the unfold betting round? Wouldn't it be better for them both to call the minimum and wait for the normal betting round (and not make free gifts to those who did not fold pre-flop)?

These raisebattle between unfolder would be awesome for players who didn't folded preflop: guess it will raise a lot players VPIP (voluntary put money in the pot) range. 

IMO that would spoil all the fun in Texas Hold'em poker. However your idea is kind of interesting, so you might try to propose a new Poker based game to be introduced in the casinos.

How about having the 'unfold' round be like any other betting round, only open to those who folded pre-flop, where the min-bet is the size of the pre-flop pot, and where everyone has to put the same in to unfold.

So players A, B, C all fold pre-flop. The pot is of size 'p'. The flop hits them all a bit, player A puts in 'p' chips to unfold, player B raises the unfold bet to '3p', player C decides not to unfold. Now it's up to player A to either call the extra 2p to match player B's 3p, give up the 'p' chips he already put in, and stay folded, or raise further. Eventually everyone has put in the same amount or dropped out of the betting, and the flop betting round can begin.

All the players who didn't fold pre-flop get to enjoy a much bigger pot thanks to A and B's betting war, at no cost to themselves other than the fact that A and B probably now have made hands.

An unfold buttom would totally change the game instead of Holdem Or Omaha it should be call UnfoldOmaha or Unfoldholdem.

If you're determined not to run simulations - you could probably get with a relatively safe value (like 1x pot) and tweak the numbers as you see games being played (you'd have to record overall usage of "unfolding" in all games played at your casino). It depends what you're looking for - if you're looking for something to spice things up - then you want to allow it to see play relatively often (ie. costing less).

That being said I'd personally run simulations to ensure that it is a viable play without being extreme on either side (never sees usage/always see usage in terms of correct value plays). 

Yes, that could work better.
The down-side is that would slow the game down even more, but in turn it would allow making more informative decisions, moving the game more towards skills rather than pure luck. Could be irritating in large tables (9-10 seats) but shouldn't cause that much of a problem for 4-6 players.

Any ideas how to determine the optimal cost of unfolding without live testing or simulations? Is 2 x pot good enough to start with?

I think it makes more sense to have a separate round of activity between the flop being shown and the flop betting round in which each folded player in turn, starting with the SB, is asked whether they want to unfold or not. Each player's answer is shown to all players, so folding the button gives you position on those who folded in earlier positions.

Agree, it cannot be too low, but you may not get a chance to unfold, unless you already know there are at least 2 players in the game, so it depends on your position at the table.


First of all, the smart player doesn't have to fold, as unfolding doesn't mean betting/raising, unless the unfolding player also raises (high) later on.
Second, unfolding could be a bluff.
Third, even if you know it's not a bluff, it still make sense to stay in the game if you have a strong hand. Example:

Players:
A- J,J calls 100 pre-flop
B- 3,8 - folds pre-flop, unfolds on the flop
C- lets ignore him, pays BB 100

Flop: 2,3,8 (no flush draw)

After the unfold, the pot increases to 600 (assuming unfold costs 2x pot): 200 from A and C + (2x200 from B) = 600

Player A's chances of winning are only 25.45%, but his chips constitute only 16.67% of the pot.
If player B bets another 100 and A calls, then the chips risked by A are 25.00%, so he still has an edge of 0.45%

And the higher the unfold cost is set, the more it pays to stay in the game even if the odds are not in your favour.

It's an interesting idea - personally I think you'd have to figure out the "cost" of unfolding. If you set it too low - people are effectively getting known cards for a small price (making it an extreme value play), if you set it too high you'll rarely see it in play and then any smart player would fold it (simply because they know you'd rarely dump a crap load of chips on a losing horse). It certainly would change the game by a huge amount - and I've no doubt someone would probably work out an edge play for it and incorporate it into strategy.

Pokerstars have made very game just about beatable for sure yep, generally though they extract maximum rake profit and make games all tight and boring, it probably would be cool to see a popular bitcoin version of this game.

that would be a totally new game , it may applied actually in the future
most players were complaining when Pokerstars launched their spin&goes , they were complaining about having a long term profit in them and also the way that it attracts recreational players and pushing them away from regular tables , after a year we can see that there are plenty of players who only play spin&goes and are making a good profit also regular games are still going on and pokerstars still #1
my point is when a new game appears you can see a lot of complaints cause people are not familiar with it

every poker game is beatable and every poker game has its own strategy , this unfold button will change the strategy but that doesn't mean that it's not good or not beatable
this unfold button may be a good bluff in low boards , also people will tend to fold their small pairs pre flop and then involve if they hit 

Thats why you'd have to pay to buy back into the pot. 

If you really want some smart poker dudes to give this some thoughts could ask over at 2+2.  But hopefully some site in bitcoin land could test this game.

No one would be mad. It's no shame to lose to straight flush
But that's poker, you can lose with AA, people get lucky on the river etc. It's not going to be drastically different with 'unfold' option. You'd just need to adjust your strategy.

idk. if you suddenly gained a straight flush after folding, you unfolded it, then others would be mad with the winner for sure.

That's a good question. I assumed (for simplicity) the player couldn't unfold if he doesn't have enough chips. But this could result in large, strategic pre-flop bets, and I'm not sure whether that would be good. Sidepots make sense, it would be just like as when player goes all-in, except in this case he doesn't make a bet (just donating to the pot) so the others don't have to call and are still in the game.


Other thought: Imagine 2 players who folded (A,B). Now, should all the players (at the table) be able to see that player unfolded as soon as he clicks the button? In such case, if player A has i.e. 4Q folded, then the flop is: 2,7,Q - he might want to unfold but only if player B doesn't do the same (as he could have 2 pairs etc.). So it makes every sense for him to wait and click in the very last second. That's definitely not desirable.

So the best thing would be to reveal all the unfolds all at once at the end of the waiting period (I assumed 5 seconds), but having to wait 5 extra seconds in (almost) every hand would noticeably slow the game down. Reducing the period to <5 sec would be just too short for anyone to make a decision.

Either way would work. Making the sidepots seems a little confusing to me at the moment, but would probably work out OK in practice.

What would be the rule if original folder who wants tu unfold dont have all the chips to cover double the pot amount?
Would he be able to unfold by creating a sidepot (up to the amount he can afford to cover with his chips) and a mainpot or he just could not unfold anymore?

You mean the same kind of disaster as when someone goes all-in after the flop? Should shoving be banned?

i do not playing poker very often so i don't know this button is necessary or not but if any some people push unfold button
and they have lost i think they will regret their decision