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).
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.
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.
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)?