When ranking competing full houses in poker, does one rank the hands by the highest 3 of a kind, or by the highest overall set.
For example, if I had a hand consisting of 9-9-9-4-4 and my opponent had 7-7-7-Q-Q, do I win because I had the higher three of a kind, or does my opponent win on the basis of the pair of queens being the highest ranked set?
Zev Steinhardt
You go by highest three of a kind.
Higher trips wins the hand.
In the case you mentioned, 9s over beats 7s over. It doesn’t matter what the pair is.
The pair part only comes into play if wild cards are being used, so that (deuces being wild) A-A-A-K-K beats A-A-2-Q-Q. Wild cards in poker seem somewhat out of fashion these days, though, so I doubt it would come up much nowadays.
Assuming, in the example above, you’re playing with a deck with five aces :smack: So, er, A-A-2-K-K beats A-A-2-Q-Q, etc.
Obviously you meant A-A-2-K-K beats A-A-2-Q-Q.
Haj
Woot! A GQ question I can actually answer!
Full houses are ranked according to the set, not the pair. Note that “set” in poker means 3 of a kind. Thus, your 9-9-9-4-4 (“9’s over 4’s”) will beat 7-7-7-Q-Q (“7’s over queens”).
Note that the when you say “X’s over Y’s”, the X’s will be the set, the Y’s will be the pair. Y’s can decide things in case of a tie in X, as you’d expect (note this can only happen in a game using wild cards or multiple decks, for obvious reasons).
Or in Texas Hold’em, d’oh! :smack:
By the way, this had no reply when I first opened it. Quick draw, folks.
Now that’s a simul-post!
How many gamblers do we have on this board, anyway?
While we’re asking questions, what triggered the current poker fad? I’m seeing cheapo chip sets for sale in convenience stores fer cryin’ out loud.
I think that the current fad started with the movie Rounders. Next they were showing poker on ESPN. Now everyone wants to play.
Haj
Rounders was a lot of it, but they’ve been showing poker on TV since way before the movie. ESPN Classic has been showing re-broadcasts of WSOPs going back into at least the early 90s. Dick Van Patten was the color commentator for several years, and it’s obvious where Vince Van Patten got his almost complete lack of style from. One of the eps was from the year Rounders was made and there was an interview with Matt Damon and Ed Norton, who played the WSOP that year.
Very true but now they’re showing way more tournaments than just the WSOP and even that abomination, Celebrity Poker.
Haj
What, you watch Celebrity Poker Showdown for the poker? That’s almost as silly as watching Tilt for the poker. Or watching Tilt at all.
Now if you want to talk horrendo televised poker, I direct your attention to the syndicated Ultimate Poker Challenge and GSN’s Poker Royale: Battle of the Sexes. The former features horrifyingly bad play, so bad it causes the poker pro commentators to sputter in stunned amazement, and the latter features better poker but the commentators all need to be thrashed.
Fox Sports Net used to have a pretty awful one too, Late Night Poker (piped over from Wales or some damn thing). The episodes seemed to be shown out of order so there was no way to know from one week to the next what the hell was going on.
Still, every poker show on TV brings more fish to my table, so god bless them everyone.
I’ve been playing in a “poker” game for many years. The games are silly, and there are always wild cards. The game gets farther away from what used to be called poker every month. (My wife calls it the Nerdy Perfesser’s Club). But we’ve never used wild cards to distinguish between winning hands. Three aces with no wild cards splits with three aces with two wild cards. My “Up to Date Hoyle” (copyright 1959) doesn’t mention wild cards at all. Is that a legit distinction? Or a convention? It would actually help bring back some sort of sanity to a game that has become laughable. (That’s not a bad thing, of course. It’s just that it would sometimes be nice to play actual poker). xo C.
And by the way, I think in most places, “X over Y” means two pair, while “X full of Y” would refer to a full house.
So “Kings over sixes” would be understood as two pair (K-K-6-6-x) wheras a full house of three kings and two sixes (K-K-K-6-6) would be described as “Kings full of sixes” . And a full house of 6-6-6-K-K would be “Sixes full of Kings”.
And “Sixes over Kings” would be meaningless and silly; since with two pair, you’d always say the higher pair first.
I just don’t want to see anyone shot over a misunderstanding here.
Not this place. Anywhere I’ve played “X’s over Y’s” means a full house. “X’s full of Y’s” means the same thing, but is not used as often. Two pair is always designated as “X’s and Y’s”. I guess this means one needs to clarify terminology prioir to the ante, eh?
In the online games I play, the system announces two pair as “Xes and Ys” with X being the higher pair and announces a full house as “Xes full of Ys” with X being the set. In live games I play most people just say “two pair” without specifying the pair, unless one pair is on the board in which case they’ll just call the pair made using one or the other of their hole cards. Regardless the cards speak so the player can announce anything they want any way they want.
I’m unaware of any standard hold’em variation that uses wild cards (wild cards on the flop? Madness!) but draw games sometimes use a 53-card deck including a Joker. A hand made with a Joker is exactly the same value as the same hand made naturally. Whatever anyone else does, as long as you set the rule and everyone playing understands, it’s all good.
Well, I’m probably no expert on the subject, other than being a collector of old “Hoyle” type books. (I collect playing cards, and I…well, I like reading about rules of card games. Strange, I know.)
There are no “legitimate” rules of poker anywhere. There are rules set down by various organizations, such as the World Series of Poker crowd, but it’s not like bridge or Skat in Germany, where there is a specific governing body. So there there is no “official” rule over whether a “natural” poker hand beats the same hand with wild cards.
As for “convention,” I have seen three main conventions in the books I’ve got. I’m certain, taken together, they won’t help:
Most books say nothing about the distinction. With deuces wild, A-2-2-7-6 ties with A-A-A-7-6.
Other books specifically state that, while the hands above are tied, in the case of flushes, a hand with wild cards can beat one without, under certain circumstances. Reasoning: One player holds Ac-Jc-6c-4c-3c, and the other holds Ah-Jh-6h-4h-2s. The 2s, with deuces wild, counts as a “second ace of hearts,” and the second player’s “A-A-J-6-4” beats the other’s A-J-6-4-3. So, in a flush, a wild card always counts as the ace of a suit, even if one is already held.
Still other books argue as you do: that a hand without wild cards beats one without. Problem is, it doesn’t really come into play that much. Take these two hands, deuces wild: A-A-A-7-5; A-2-2-7-6. Even playing that a “natural” hand beats a “wild” hand, the second hand still wins. The two hands aren’t exactly the same: going down to the fifth card, the second hand is higher. Playing this way, the only practical case where the rule comes into play is for straights.
Having read a number of rule books, I think I’d recommend David Parlett’s advice: Keep wild cards to a minimum. A good idea is to use one or two jokers as the “bug”–as in Pai Gow Poker, the “bug” can only serve as an ace, or to fill a flush or straight. Other than that, I think you’re on the right track.
Apparently there’s a variation called “wild spit in the ocean” in which the single common card is wild in all hands. I agree, madness! Talk about hand inflation!