Inspired by the thread that discussed the “cards speak” rule, I’d like to hear about other poker house rules, both normal and strange. (Googling this subject produces the expected host of variations.)
I’ve been in games where “check-raise” is allowed and uncontroversial. I’ve been in others where it was not only prohibited, but seen as heinous - only a small step above attempting to steal chips while a player is fetching a beer.
In a long-running game, we’ve had extensive discussions about how aces should be treated. The rule in place is that multiple aces must go the same way (either all high or all low) but there are no restrictions beyond that - a pair of aces can be lower than deuces or higher than kings.
We play that the lowest hand is A-2-3-4-6 (not of one suit). A big discussion came up when A-2-3-4-5 went up against a pair of sevens for the low half of the pot. The guy with the pair claimed he was the winner because the other guy has a straight. The guy without the pair said he had ace-high, which is lower than a pair. The guy with the pair was deemed the loser, but he retained hard feelings - he felt that “cards speak” should mean that his opponent had a straight.
The issue of going “both ways” in a high-low game seems controversial. Some games seem to regard it as inherently greedy, and have rules that say you must win both ways - any tie is a complete loss. Others say that going both ways is equivalent to saying “you can’t beat me”, so ties are not disqualifying.
What other rules tend to invite (or resolve) controversy?
We’ve almost always played that the player has to call his own hand, although I would probably prefer “cards speak” to avoid controversy.
I’d never heard of check-raising being controversial until it was brought up (previously) here. I think if you eliminate check-raises you’re no longer playing poker. Might as well play rummy or canasta.
We’ve generally used Aces as high or low in games with low cards. It can form either end of a straight (A-10 or A-5). A-5 is always a straight.
The most common ways of playing are “deuce to 7” meaning the lowest hand you can get is 2-3-4-5-7 and games with “8 or better”. Clearly, the former implies aces go high and pairs and straights count against you.
In “8 or better” low-ball games (where hi-lo split the pot, but the low has to be a low hand less than “8 high”) straights and flushes DON’T count against you, so you could have A-2-3-4-5 straight flush for a low. This is how razz and Omaha 8-or-better are played. But if the lowest hand you can make is 2-3-4-5-9, say, you don’t have a low at all. There are reasons for that.
I THINK that there are also games where people play A-2-3-4-6 is the lowest hand. So, the ace goes low, but straights hurt.
Removing the “check-raise” from poker is ridiculous. You’re removing a tactic critical to poker. Without it, you are one step closer to being old ladies playing for matchsticks.
Our games always played “cards speak”. It was rare for someone to misread a hand. If they did, no big whoop.
I don’t think so. The idea is that you can have A-2-3-4-6 as a low hand or A-K-Q-J-10 as a high hand. In some of the wild card games I’ve played you could conceivably hold both at once. But you couldn’t call A-5 as low without it being a straight, and I’m fairly sure we don’t allow it to be A (high) 2-5. Not that this hand would typically win a low hand in any of our games, anyway, so maybe it’s never come up.
If you’re playing hi-lo splits, A2345 counts both as a straight and as the nut low. Low hands go strictly by the numbers; straights and flushes are irrelevant. Most (all?) split pot games I’ve ever seen require five unique cards lower than 8. The only game the rules of which I know where the low hand can have cards higher than 8 is Razz, and aces are always low in Razz.
Check-raise being controversial is an extreme minority opinion.
Interesting story.
This weekend I played in a satellite tournament an it was down to three-handed. I was chip leader and the short stack was on my right, pretty much to the felt. I was the button with AK off and the big blind. The button folded and the other guy limps in. I raise him all in. He is thinking, because he is running out of hands and he is talking to himself. He then turns and asks me, “Whattya got a pair?” It is the typical rhetorical poker question hoping to get some information. So I answer, “Yes.” He looks at me shocked, that I would answer. “Really?” and I say “Maybe.” So he keeps muttering to himself and folds, showing A5 suited. So I show my hand and he gets this disusted look on his face and turns to his friends and said, “This guy lied to me!” and you could tell he thought I was doing something “immoral” in a poker sense. Whatever, I was annoyed cuz this guy had like three of his buddies behind me saying, “Hey be a nice guy and let him have his entry back ($70).” for about ten minutes as his stack dwindled. He went out soon and I chopped with the other guy.
No, the objection was to checking and then raising. (The rule was that once you’ve checked you weren’t allowed to raise.)
I was surprised to learn that this could be controversial, but have since encountered this view several times. It seems a strange thing to me, but not all that rare.
Check-raising is a fundamental tactic. It’s also fairly cutthroat, so I can sorta see why super-casual games would discourage it. (Not saying I agree, mind)
My “super-casual game” discourages check-raising because no one else who plays in it has any idea what it means. You have no idea how disheartening it is to check-raise and have everyone still in the hand call instantly.
And don’t even get me started on the futility of check-raising online…
This thread is a good chance for me to ask some other questions I was afraid would hijack my other thread.
What is the feeling on other players who have dropped out, looking at the cards on the table and speculating out loud what possibilites there could be? Like pointing out that a 10s and 8s would complete a straight flush if anyone had those as pocket cards. Personally it helps me, because of my problem of seeing straights, but I have noticed it seems to annoy others, so I never do it.
And in the books I have read, I haven’t come across the reason for the terms “on the river” or “fourth street.” Does anyone here know?
Our friendly game allows check-raise, and no one thinks it is bad, we just rarely do it. The first time I did it, everyone looked surprised, then they figured it out. In my case it was because I had just noticed I had a straight, and didn’t see it when I originally checked. I know better now not to do that.
And I am wondering if other casual games do this? For Texas Holdem, when we first started we only had the same colored chips. So everyone put $20 up and got the same number of chips. Now we have real sets, and could use the different colors for different amounts, but we never saw a reason to switch. How do you all do it?
And if anyone doesn’t mind answering, what amounts do you play for in all or nothing games like Texas Holdem? And does winner take all, or does second place get anything? Just curious.
People who aren’t in the hand should be quiet, and that includes speculating on possibilities. Not that I’m going to get bent out of shape should someone at my home game speculate, but I still find it inappropriate.
I don’t know the origin of calling the cards streets, why fourth street is also the turn or why fifth street is also the river. My WAG regarding “river” would be that it has something to do with rivers often being boundaries, as in once you get to the river you can’t go any farther, but I have no idea really.
As far as chips go, several of us play in a tourney series in town and someone bought a chip set from the tourney director so we just follow the same color conventions as that series.
Dollar-wise we play $10 buy in single table tourneys. If we have 8 players then the payout is $60/$20. If we have 9 then 3rd place gets their buy-in back. The most we’ve had is 10 and the payout was $70/$20/$10.
I’m curious about this bit:
Why do you know now not to check-raise? C-R is a powerful tool both as a trap and as a bluff.
I just meant in that situation I wouldn’t do it. If I check check-raise, I will now know everyone will take notice, because it is an unusal thing to do. In that earlier situation, I wasn’t thinking about that, and my body language gave me away. Everyone had seen me studying my cards, then light up when I connected the straight. I was excited, and when I had a chance to raise, I did, and everyone folded. The next time I check-raise, I will be more aware of how everyone will react, and make sure I don’t give anything away that I don’t want given away. In that particular game I would have rather everyone stayed in.