|
|
#21
04-06-2007, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Kicker play with quads on board?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is an old rule, I recall Brunson wrting about this in his original "Super System." The reason is that it is impossible for two different players to hold four of a kind. Since four of a kind is a unique hand unto istself, the kicker does not come into play. He wrote about that he actually saw this occur in an early WSOP, and it was ruled a split pot, without regard to anyone's kicker. [/ QUOTE ] Aha! Thanks a bunch! This certainly explain why he'd think it was a split pot, then. I'm going over Robert's today to adapt it for my game, so I may find it in there, but you may know where it's referenced online anywhere... [/ QUOTE ] This "rule" is really silly if applied to community card games. The "unique" aspect only applies to something like draw poker without wild or community cards. If you want to look at it from a non-community card aspect, even 3 of a kind hands fall into this so called class of being "unique". 
|
|
#23
04-06-2007, 02:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kicker play with quads on board?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] His logic is just dumb. Of course the best five cards play no matter where they are. I can't believe he's saying that if the board were 44442, that it's a split. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, didn't make much sense to me. I can see the reasoning that two players can't have quads on the strength of their hand, so it's not a total head-scratcher understanding his point of view, but it's a five card game. The main thing that gave me pause is that he's by far the best player in the room (great at reading people despite being primarily an online player) and is generally quite knowledgable, so I considered that perhaps this is an old rule not in use any more. [/ QUOTE ] This is an old rule, I recall Brunson wrting about this in his original "Super System." The reason is that it is impossible for two different players to hold four of a kind. Since four of a kind is a unique hand unto istself, the kicker does not come into play. He wrote about that he actually saw this occur in an early WSOP, and it was ruled a split pot, without regard to anyone's kicker. [/ QUOTE ] They must have been coming from Draw/Stud play then because the whole concept in HE is that you have 7 cards and the 5 best win no matter if they are all on the board. Otherwise what would happen if the board was AKQJTs? They both hold Royals. Or TTT55 on the board.
|
|
#24
04-06-2007, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kicker play with quads on board?
I actually had a dealer tell the table I was at a story about how the last table he dealt had a 3 way split when the board showed quads. Apparently the guy with an ace said he won. But the dealer told him that everyone had quads and it was a split....
I sat there for a second like WTF is this a joke and waited for the punch line...Only one other person at the table said anything which I immediately backed up and the dealer started to look nervous. The two of us made some noises about calling the floor to get him instructed on the proper course of action but since we weren't affected we didn't. We told the dealer that if it happened here we would call the floor in a heartbeat. BEAT: This dealer has been there forever BEAT: This is FLORIDA POKER
|
|
#25
04-06-2007, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kicker play with quads on board?
Of course the kicker plays when quads is on the board... anyone ruling otherwise for any reason is just wrong.
The argument that 4 of a kind is "unique" is absurd due to community cards. By this logic it's "impossible" for both players to also have 3 of a kind of the same card. I mean, that would be 6 of that card right? Player X: AK Player Y: AQ Board: AA236 Who wins? Is it a split pot? I mean, techinically both have "3 of a kind" aces. The answer is of course, no it's not a split pot, player X wins. If the board comes AAA23 does KQ split with JT? I mean, they both have "3 of a kind" right? A unique hand? Silly.
|
|
#26
04-06-2007, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kicker play with quads on board?
"For the longest time I avoided trying to understand how stud was supposed to be bet, but now I appreciate it's complex structure, except for the low bringing it in. I'm still not sure to the reason for that. Would love a logical explanation."
I just assumed it's that way to encourage action.
|
|
#27
04-06-2007, 03:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kicker play with quads on board?
[ QUOTE ]
"For the longest time I avoided trying to understand how stud was supposed to be bet, but now I appreciate it's complex structure, except for the low bringing it in. I'm still not sure to the reason for that. Would love a logical explanation." I just assumed it's that way to encourage action. [/ QUOTE ] That was my hypothesis as well.
|
|
#30
04-06-2007, 09:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kicker play with quads on board?
This thread reminds me of the guy that wrote in to Bluff Magazine's "Ask Clonie" to have her clear up a ruling he made in a home game. He said his wife's 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] was beat by his friend's A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on a board of 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. His reasoning was that since there was a flush on the board, the five community cards took precedence. Since her 5 was lower than all the other diamonds, it didn't play, so she didn't have a straight flush. He said his friend's ace played because it was higher than the cards on the board. I couldn't believe they even wasted the magazine space to answer this guy.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
