| User | Post |
|
5:29 am
April 3, 2008
|
John Hill
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Last night I played a game of Omaha declare, a large pot with three persons remaining. Prior to the last bet the declaration was made using chips, one for low, two for high, and three for high and low! I declared for three (high and low). The rules are that if you declare high and low you must win both or lose! In this instance I beat the high three of a kind and tied for the low with a 23456 straight. My contention is that I should have taken half the pot for high and split the low. However the rest of the table insisted that as I "didn't win the low, onlly tied" I would forfeit the entire pot to the low as I didn't "win" the low only tied. I am incensed. Am I right or are they?
|
|
|
6:09 am
April 3, 2008
|
T.H Rackman
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
You have posed an interesting question, however fortunately for you this situation was covered in both Doyle Brunson's Super System and David Slansky's treatise on Omaha. While technically you didn't "win" the low hand the tie would be considered a "win" in the context of the game as you both had the identical low hand. You are perfectly right in assuming that you should have split the the low and taken half the pot on the high. My advice to you would be to make sure that your table mates are up on the rules of the game!
|
|
|
7:49 pm
April 3, 2008
|
B. Shear
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Rackman is entirely correct. While the question presents a certain ambiguity ie: "win" vs "lose" the situation is analgous to, for example, to both Hill and the other low hand both opting for the low. In that case Hill would split half the pot with the other low hand while the high hand with three-of-kind would have taken half the pot! However, as Hill chose to "pig it" opting for both high and low he did not "lose" to the other low hand, he tied ,placing himself in the position of splitting half the pot with the other identical low hand and garnering half the pot from the holder of three-of- kind! Sometimes semantics can cause a bit of confusion. While I have been a frequent enterer in the World Series of Poker my forte is Omaha, a game I both love and despise as it presents challenges that no other game does!
|
|
|
8:55 pm
April 3, 2008
|
Johill
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
I appreciate your comments. Our game is frendlly and not too far outl, however I do feel that I have been somewhtat screwed in this particular context. The particular game cost me a bundle which I reallly felt I did' t deserve.
|
|
|
4:19 pm
April 5, 2008
|
BTR
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
I think the house rules would determine what constitutes a "win". Since I've never seen a declare game spread at a casino I don't think there is an established guideline use as a basis for rules. It would be interesting to see if Hoyles has printed rules for Omaha Hi/Lo split. I doubt they do but you might want to check.
|
|
|
7:21 pm
April 6, 2008
|
T.H. Rackman
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
This is an extremely difficult question. I stand by my original answer, however, it all depends on the rules of the original game. Shear makes a good point that it is a question of semantics. If the table rules state that you must "win" both hands to garner the entire pot then Hill should forfiet the pot. But the generally accepted rules maintain that Hill did not "lose" to the low hand but "split"and as a consequence should split the low and take the high . However, if the table rules state that it must be a "win" then we have a flurther problem! Hill's hand becomes null and void consequently the high hand of three pair becomes high and the low hand should split the pot with the three paiir. But in this case as I see it the low took the whole pot and that is not right!!
|
|
|
9:46 am
April 9, 2008
|
Phat Mack
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Just from a historical perspective, when delare was *the* action game, in 90-95% of the games I played in you would have lost the entire pot.
But as posted above, it depended on the rules of the individual game. Generally though, to scoop you had to win both sides outright.
jmo
|
|
Login 
Register 
Search 
Message Board
Add a New Topic
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
