Anyone ever played Duplicate Poker?
February 22nd, 2013 at 2:29:43 PM
permalink
I used to play duplicate bridge, and thought that a duplicate poker tournament would be fun, and somewhat (?) easy to set up. I'm wondering if anyone has every played in a duplicate tournament, either live or online? I saw on Wikipedia there was a website that used to run them, though now defunct for 5 years (so, maaaaybe not a super popular format), and that a casino in Oklahoma ran a live tournament. Once. Maybe. (And without proper Wikipedia citation.)
Is anyone familiar with this breed of poker? Anyone? Any experience at all, even tangential/hearsay? I'd love to hear it if so!
Is anyone familiar with this breed of poker? Anyone? Any experience at all, even tangential/hearsay? I'd love to hear it if so!
February 22nd, 2013 at 3:37:08 PM
permalink
We tried a duplicate tourney for poker night one time in college. it was fun enough. But DAMN was that hard to set up.
For our poker game, I synchronized the decks for several hands. Then another player numbered the decks and created the order of play. Then, on each hand, we rolled a die and burned the corresponding number of cards of the top of the deck. Since players were setting the decks, we figured that was a good enough method of ensuring that we had no inside info to use during play. That method worked well, but we had two major issues: 1. even with 20 sets of decks, we had to break every hour, for about an hour, so we could redo the deck setting process. 2. When the first player was knocked out of the tourney, we realized that our system would no longer be even across tables. In our tourney, we just let that happen. But we did think of two possible solutions for "next time": We would either require rebuys, with the high chip count winning after X rounds; or we'd eliminate the low man (or men) at each table whenever someone was knocked out. I was a strong advocate of the second option, reasoning that it'd make for fast games and that it'd create laborers to organize the next set of decks.
For our poker game, I synchronized the decks for several hands. Then another player numbered the decks and created the order of play. Then, on each hand, we rolled a die and burned the corresponding number of cards of the top of the deck. Since players were setting the decks, we figured that was a good enough method of ensuring that we had no inside info to use during play. That method worked well, but we had two major issues: 1. even with 20 sets of decks, we had to break every hour, for about an hour, so we could redo the deck setting process. 2. When the first player was knocked out of the tourney, we realized that our system would no longer be even across tables. In our tourney, we just let that happen. But we did think of two possible solutions for "next time": We would either require rebuys, with the high chip count winning after X rounds; or we'd eliminate the low man (or men) at each table whenever someone was knocked out. I was a strong advocate of the second option, reasoning that it'd make for fast games and that it'd create laborers to organize the next set of decks.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
February 22nd, 2013 at 3:41:27 PM
permalink
I played online version for a about an hour. Found it was terribly tedious and didn't really solve any problems with luck... it all depended still on your opponents, and the 'best play' might rate far worse if one person was overly aggressive on a table.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 23rd, 2013 at 12:19:26 PM
permalink
I was thinking you could do it without knockouts, something like three tables of 5 players each. Then set the hands ahead of time, maybe one round is 5 set of hands per table and you start with 3 or 6 rounds. Table One plays Set 1 (five hands), then you tally your score, and then you restart the chips when you play Set 2. Then you compare how each seat did in each Set of five hands, across all three tables. Though you'd have to be careful to make sure the tables couldn't see each other or yell out "Damn, Aces cracked" or whatever.
As for different strategies, sure seems like very aggressive play could have a major impact in the short term, but in the long run I think smart-aggressive play would still be rewarded and dumb-wild-aggressive would be penalized. Since the person who lost big with a 7-2 would do worse on that hand than the person who just folded. The idea that losing-less is sometimes really valuable with a losing starting hand.
And the online one sounds really tedious, for sure. Thanks for the feedback!
As for different strategies, sure seems like very aggressive play could have a major impact in the short term, but in the long run I think smart-aggressive play would still be rewarded and dumb-wild-aggressive would be penalized. Since the person who lost big with a 7-2 would do worse on that hand than the person who just folded. The idea that losing-less is sometimes really valuable with a losing starting hand.
And the online one sounds really tedious, for sure. Thanks for the feedback!
