The embodiments of the present invention relate to a poker game system and method whereby players may agree to split a pot prior to the poker game ends wherein the split is based on true odds.
Poker has become a very popular game to the masses because of televised poker events and online remote access to live poker games. In other words, poker play is more mainstream and access is greatly improved. While poker has become very popular, there continue to be negative situations arising during poker games which may cause players to become discouraged with poker. One primary situation is known as the “bad beat.” A poker bad beat occurs when one player is a heavy favorite to win the poker hand but loses when a second player receives one or more low probability cards to create a winning hand for the second player. For example, in Texas Hold'em a bad beat can occur when a first player holds three of a kind after the turn and a second player holds an inside straight draw. If the second player hits the card needed to complete the straight, the first player has suffered a bad beat. If a payer suffers enough bad beats, the player may become discouraged and not continue to play.
Therefore, it would be beneficial to incorporate a pot allocation method whereby players can mitigate the impact of bad beats and accept some monies when holding poor hands. Advantageously, the pot allocation system and method should be configured to allow operators to generate additional revenue.
Accordingly, a first embodiment of the present invention is a method of allocating poker pots based on the true odds of winning the hand. The pot allocation is at the election of the two or more players involved in the hand after no more bets are possible (one or more players all in). Once no more bets are possible, the two or more players may elect to allocate the pot based on the true odds of each player winning the pot. In one embodiment, the house or game operator charges a fee in order for players to utilize the pot allocation option. For example, the house or operator may collect a flat fee (e.g., 0.25¢) or a percentage (e.g., 1%) of the pot when the pot allocation option is utilized by willing players. In another embodiment, players may allocate a percentage of the pot and play the hand out for the remaining percentage. In yet another embodiment, if one player declines the pot allocation option, the house or operator may buy the player's hand. For example, if a first player has a 90% chance of winning the hand and accepts the pot allocation option but the second player has a 10% chance of winning the hand and declines the pot allocation option, the house or operator can pay the first player 90% of the pot and take the player's place and play out the hand against the second player. If the house wins, the house keeps the remaining 10% of the pot but if the house loses it must pay the second player the full pot amount (i.e., the other 90% awarded to the first player).
The embodiments of the present invention are ideally suited for poker games facilitated by electronic devices (e.g., smart phone) or computer networks (e.g., the internet) which implement computer software to quickly calculate the true odds of players willing to utilize the pot allocation option and present players with a simple to use game interface to accept or decline the pot allocation option. However, live poker games held in brick and mortar casinos and card rooms may also benefit from the embodiments of the present invention as detailed below.
Other variations, embodiments and features of the present invention will become evident from the following detailed description, drawings and claims.
a-1j illustrate exemplary screen shots showing a conventional Texas Hold'em game played out;
For the purpose of promoting an understanding of the principles in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention, reference will now be made to the embodiments illustrated in the drawings and specific language will be used to describe the same. It will nevertheless be understood that no limitation of the scope of the invention is thereby intended. Any alterations and further modifications of the inventive features illustrated herein, and any additional applications of the principles of the invention as illustrated herein, which would normally occur to one skilled in the relevant art and having possession of this disclosure, are to be considered within the scope of the invention claimed.
The embodiments of the present invention relate to a system and method for allocating poker game pots based on true odds. While the embodiments of the present invention are suitable for any and all poker games and other pot games, for the sake of brevity the detailed description below is directed to Texas Hold'em. In addition, the embodiments of the present invention may be utilized with live card games conducted in card rooms and casinos, and electronically implemented card games.
a-1j illustrate various screen shots depicted on displays associated with electronic devices such as desktop and laptop computers, cellular telephones, PDAs, etc. Online websites are well-known for facilitating poker games. Such websites utilize servers to maintain poker software which allows remote players to play poker against one another via player interfaces (e.g., touch screen, mouse, keys. etc.). The websites may allow wagering or may be educational in nature. The embodiments of the present invention are ideal for implementation in an online environment.
a shows a conventional online poker screen shot 100-1 including a simulated poker table 105, players 110, player screen names 115, chip counts 120, pot area 127. Those skilled in the art will recognize that other relevant information may appear on the screen shot 100-1.
In a first embodiment of the present invention, two or more players involved in a hand with no more betting possible are given the opportunity to allocate the pot pursuant to the true odds. No more betting means no more than one player remaining in the hand is able to bet and all others are all in. For example, in a head-up situation at least one player is all in and with three players in the hand at least two players are all in. The embodiments of the present invention are suitable for any number of players remaining in the hand when no betting is possible.
Players may elect the option via box 205-1, 205-2 or decline the option via box 210-1, 210-2. Additionally or alternatively, the option may default as declined if either player does not make an election within a pre-determined amount of time (e.g., 3 seconds). Optionally a clock is associated with each pot allocation window 200 allowing players to observe how much time remains before a default occurs. If either player declines the option or the option defaults to decline for either player, the game proceeds in the normal manner with all remaining cards being displayed and the winning hand being awarded the pot. If both players decline the option or the option defaults to decline for both players, the game also proceeds in a normal manner with all remaining cards being displayed and the winner being awarded the pot. If both players accept the option, the pot is allocated as described above.
Players may elect the option via box 205-1 through 205-3 or decline the option via box 210-1 through 210-3. As set forth above, the option may default as declined if either player does not make an election within a pre-determined amount of time (e.g., 3 seconds). If any player declines the option or the option defaults to decline for any player, the game proceeds in the normal manner with all remaining cards being displayed and the winning hand being awarded the pot. If all players decline the option or the option defaults to decline for all players, the game also proceeds in a normal manner with all remaining cards being displayed and the winner being awarded the pot. If all players accept the option, the pot is allocated as described above.
Players may elect the first option via box 205-1, 205-2 and second option via box 210-1, 210-2 or decline both options via box 215-1, 215-2. Like above, the option may default as declined if either player does not make an election within a pre-determined amount of time (e.g., 3 seconds). If either player declines both options or a player option default to decline, the game proceeds in the normal manner with all remaining cards being displayed and the winning hand being awarded the pot. If both players decline the option or the option defaults to decline for both players, the game also proceeds in a normal manner with all remaining cards being displayed and the winner being awarded the pot. If both players accept the first option, the pot is allocated according to the true odds 201-1, 201-2. If both players accept the second option, 50% of the pot is allocated according to the true odds 201-1, 201-2 and the hand is played out for the remaining 50% of the pot. There are several possible outcomes if one player accepts the first option and one player accepts the second option. A first outcome is that 50% of the pot is allocated according to the true odds 201-1, 201-2 and the hand is played out for the remaining 50% of the pot because both players accepted some form of allocation. Alternatively, the pot may not be allocated at all and the hand played out because both players failed to agree.
In another embodiment, as detailed in flow chart 250 of
In another embodiment, the house or game operator may elect to purchase player hands when a player declines the option to allocate the pot. For example, if a first player has a 90% chance of winning the hand and accepts the pot allocation option but the second player having a 10% chance of winning the hand declines the pot allocation option, the house or operator can award the first player 90% of the pot and take the player's place and play out the hand against the second player. If the house wins, the house keeps the remaining 10% of the pot but if the house loses it must pay the second player the full pot amount (i.e., the other 90% awarded to the first player). The house or game operator is therefore seeking to play favorable odds in return for increased revenue beyond the pot allocation fee described above.
In another embodiment, players may be presented with multiple percentage options to allocate according to the true odds with the hand being played out for the remainder of the pot. For example, the players may be provided with the option to allocate 25%, 50% or 75% of the pot. If each player elects a percentage, the pot is allocated according to the smallest elected percentage with the hand being played out for the remainder of the pot. For example, in a heads-up situation, if one played elects 75% and the other selects 25%, 25% of the pot is allocated and the hand is played out for the remaining 75% of the pot. In another embodiment, players are allowed to enter any percentage in a range of percentages (25% to 75%). Again, the lowest elected percentage dictates the amount of the pot allocated.
The embodiments of the present invention are ideally suited for poker games facilitated by electronic devices (e.g., smart phone) and computer networks (e.g., the internes) which implement computer software to quickly calculate the true odds of players willing to utilize the pot allocation option and present players with a simple to use game interface to accept or decline the pot allocation option. The embodiments of the present invention, may also be used with electronic poker tables like the type sold by PokerTek, Inc., of North Carolina. Live poker games held in brick and mortar casinos and card rooms may also benefit from the embodiments of the present invention. To facilitate live brick and mortar games, charts or electronic systems which calculate true odds may be used to allocate pots. A live brick and mortar game may also use RFID game chips to track the amounts in the pot which can then be allocated according to the true odds determined by the chart or electronic system.
Although the invention has been described in detail with reference to several embodiments, additional variations and modifications exist within the scope and spirit of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6467771 | DeKeller | Oct 2002 | B1 |
20030052452 | Spur | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030070178 | Boyd et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20060025221 | Jain et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060068870 | Crawford et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060205484 | Nicastro | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060223605 | Pullman | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060252480 | Owen | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070045957 | Blair, Jr. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070173318 | Abbott | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070210519 | Barlev | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080064467 | Reiner | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080088087 | Weitzman et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080090632 | Kumar | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080237985 | Cogert et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090029756 | Guest | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20100210334 | Crawford et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20110068537 | Menachem | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110175290 | Huynh | Jul 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1895484 | Mar 2008 | EP |
Entry |
---|
Empire Poker, Games—How to make a deal, Oct. 13, 2008, http://www.empirepoker.com/tournaments/deal—making/make—deal.html. |
Empire Poker, Games—FAQ, Oct. 13, 2008, http://www.empirepoker.com/tournaments/deal—making/faqs.html. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110183737 A1 | Jul 2011 | US |