Cash Game Scarney: Can a Dead Hand Bluff? (3 Viewers)

[Jimulacrum]

fwiw Robert's Rules of Poker offers this recourse when a player takes an aggressive action while knowing of a fouled deck. It is the only part of RRoP that I know of where a reverse freeroll on the fouler is suggested:

I'd be inclined to apply that here for the same anti-freeroll reasons. (TDA does not mention a reverse freeroll for a fouled deck as far as I'm aware.)

I find it interesting that this rule exists, as it relies on a thing we can't know for sure (whether/when the player knew).

I get wanting to penalize to discourage people from trying to freeroll, but the other side of that is a novice player who doesn't notice he has or just paired his with a on the board getting burned for an innocent mistake that is primarily the fault of the house (for allowing a fouled deck in play). And unless we assume people are going to be honest, we can't really know whether he was just playing his hand or trying to pull a fast one.

 

[glynn]

I find it interesting that this rule exists, as it relies on a thing we can't know for sure (whether/when the player knew).

I am probably the loudest advocate against the use of RRoP on these boards, so I'm not defending it here, but there are other examples of rules and in other rulesets that rely on a floorperson inferring intent. Here is the most well-known from TDA:

[...] deliberately miscalling a hand may be penalized.

As for taking aggressive actions with fouled decks and hands, I liken it to "strict liability" in law where the act is so undesirable that we don't care whether the novice knew that he held . Your opinion is a common one though.

 

[CraigT78]

No, your hand is dead, meaning you must not play it (as a bluff or otherwise). We’ve asked in our game when is the best time to reveal that your hand is dead … when you first notice it, when the action is on you, or at the end of the betting round? Each has different implications on the action.

Also, in my opinion, a winning hand in Scarney should always be shown at showdown to ensure the hand wasn’t fouled.

This exactly.

 

[CraigT78]

Personally, I think you should have to show your hand to win a Scarney pot. And if it’s fouled, my answer would be whoever actually wins the hand given that your hand is dead would win whatever is in the pot, including any money you put in. If there is nobody in the hand besides you at the end, I would rule that the people in the hand on the last action would chop the pot.

Also this to answer your second question.

 

[CraigT78]

Third question, I didn't think through. In the moment I'd rule the last person in the hand is rewarded the pot.

 

[Jimulacrum]

As for taking aggressive actions with fouled decks and hands, I liken it to "strict liability" in law where the act is so undesirable that we don't care whether the novice knew that he held . Your opinion is a common one though.

This is a tough sell for me. For inexperienced players—hell, for experienced ones too, though they're more likely to see the duplicated cards—this is going to feel extremely unfair. Employing the fouled-deck rule is no question, but penalizing a player who may have played the whole hand in good faith and mainly got screwed by the house's sloppy equipment handling seems like bad policy.

 

[FestiveKnight]

I haven’t ever considered this could happen and we play scarney drunk as sailors with two decks combined! But rules are for unexpected situations so it’s interesting to consider.

I think I’d probably try to undo the hand and give everyone their bets back except the fouler whose money I’d ante into the next hand.

 

[FestiveKnight]

I haven’t ever considered this could happen and we play scarney drunk as sailors with two decks combined! But rules are for unexpected situations so it’s interesting to consider.

I think I’d probably try to undo the hand and give everyone their bets back except the fouler whose money I’d ante into the next hand.

That still leaves a window for someone to realize they are going to lose the hand and then intentionally foul in this way to try playing for their own money from earlier in the hand in the next hand? But if you’re doing that at my guy we’ve got bigger problems. I guess you could not let the fouler play the next hand? That gets so ugly

 

[CraigT78]

This thread stirred up my trauma.

A few weeks ago I'm playing Scarney 4-2-1 at the Elk's Lodge. Playing a great hand with scoop potential. Nutted full house and a solid low. I get heads up with this fella, and he leads into me for $120. I smooth call and then realize to my dismay that I neglected to discard one of the 4 flop cards.

$120 mistake.

I did not rage quit.

 

[Jimulacrum]

This thread stirred up my trauma.

A few weeks ago I'm playing Scarney 4-2-1 at the Elk's Lodge. Playing a great hand with scoop potential. Nutted full house and a solid low. I get heads up with this fella, and he leads into me for $120. I smooth call and then realize to my dismay that I neglected to discard one of the 4 flop cards.

$120 mistake.

I did not rage quit.

Great story.

 

[CraigT78]

Great story.

It wasn't.

 

[Jimulacrum]

It wasn't.

It never is.

 

[TheBigTater]

The more I think of it, this particular scenario makes this kind of ruling migraine triggering.

Most games allow a player to win a pot without having to show but this is Scarney and you have to be able to determine someone's hand is not fouled because........ it's freakin' Scarney and there are many opportunities (depending on the variation) to foul a hand.

In OP's scenario:

Normally I would be for chopping the pot with all that would have been remaining but if all the other hands are unidentifiable or retrievable how do you determine that their hands were not fouled either? If the rule is to be you have to show a valid hand to win any part of the pot then the only option to me would be to remove the illegal $50 bet (because those cards can be seen and it shows the hand was dead before the bet was made). then reverse engineer all previous bets back to all players and erase, erase, erase the hand. No one is rewarded the pot & everyone gets their bets back.

Then issue a ban on Scarney for the rest of the session before another 30 minute ruling needs to be performed.

 

[suchj0sh]

I think somehow this thread has convinced me to try this game.

 

[FordPickup92]

I chopped a hand of scarney with a straight flush once, only to have someone point out the the the opponent had should've been discarded... talk about awkward. Pot had already been awarded and the player didn't want to give their half of the pot back. We settled on me getting half of their half and they bitched the rest of the orbit. I don't think they played mixed games the rest of the day after that.
I love scarney, but scenarios like this are aggravating and unavoidable when people have been drinking or taking 2 drugs.

 

[krafticus]

Thoughts on the final card(s) on the river. If they don’t get discarded, and you show your hand .. is it dead? I’ve played recently where it was not, but I can see that as a huge opportunity to angle shoot lows and such.

 

[Rhodeman77]

What about the other side of this? If it is okay to try to bluff a hand that a player knows if fouled because they didn’t discard a card, what is to stop that player from mucking cards they want to get rid of to reduce their hand size and points? Lots of cards getting tossed and players mucking, it wouldn’t be too difficult to slide a couple of Jacks into the muck. So to prevent this from happening should the low hand have to verify what they discarded? The muck counted down with how many players were dealt in to make sure no extra cards are in it?

I’m not a fan of the game in general and can see too many ways for bad things to happen.

 

[Jimulacrum]

What about the other side of this? If it is okay to try to bluff a hand that a player knows if fouled because they didn’t discard a card, what is to stop that player from mucking cards they want to get rid of to reduce their hand size and points? Lots of cards getting tossed and players mucking, it wouldn’t be too difficult to slide a couple of Jacks into the muck. So to prevent this from happening should the low hand have to verify what they discarded? The muck counted down with how many players were dealt in to make sure no extra cards are in it?

I’m not a fan of the game in general and can see too many ways for bad things to happen.

Players discard face-up in Scarney, and their cards are added to the kill board, so there's not really space to slip unwanted cards face-down using that as subterfuge. That said, it has occurred to me that a sketchy sort could try to find ways to dump cards if the muck isn't well-managed, e.g., there are loose dead cards lying around all over the table for them to slip an unwanted card into.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Thoughts on the final card(s) on the river. If they don’t get discarded, and you show your hand .. is it dead? I’ve played recently where it was not, but I can see that as a huge opportunity to angle shoot lows and such.

If there was still potential for action, and you didn't discard the or whatever when a 2 landed on the kill board, and it goes to showdown like that, yes, your hand is dead. You really have to bake it into your routine for this game to check your cards every round and make sure you've discarded, ideally before you take your action (since that's the only point truly under your control).

 

[Jimulacrum]

I think somehow this thread has convinced me to try this game.

DO IT! It's a ton of fun, especially after people get used to it. Very strategy-rich game with tons of information for the discerning grinder to use.

 

[Nymor]

If it is okay to try to bluff a hand that a player knows if fouled because they didn’t discard a card

They could try but they're going to have to get everyone to fold and if there are multiple rounds still to go it could get costly. We play Scarney a fair amount and it's pretty rare for there not to be a showdown so it would be difficult to get away with it I think. Maybe a house rule that Scarney hands need to be shown to take the pot even when uncontested.

what is to stop that player from mucking cards they want to get rid of to reduce their hand size and points?

This is just straightup cheating and leagues away, imo, from chancing it with a fouled hand.

Scarney's a great game though and certainly a favourite in our circus games

We had one player who wouldn't play because he always feared he would forget to discard, then he played and enjoyed it until he had to break a straight flush and now regularly calls a 4 card version which can be a real rollercoaster if you get to discard 2or3 early on. I have once lost all my cards and once had to abandon a large pot I was likely to scoop because I'd missed a discard

 

[Jimulacrum]

They could try but they're going to have to get everyone to fold and if there are multiple rounds still to go it could get costly. We play Scarney a fair amount and it's pretty rare for there not to be a showdown so it would be difficult to get away with it I think. Maybe a house rule that Scarney hands need to be shown to take the pot even when uncontested.

This is where a lot of the conversation has gone. This issue does not really come up often because of how unlikely it is to bluff your way to the whole pot. There will almost always be someone who will chase you down with a low or high that it looks like you can't beat.

We had one player who wouldn't play because he always feared he would forget to discard, then he played and enjoyed it until he had to break a straight flush and now regularly calls a 4 card version which can be a real rollercoaster if you get to discard 2or3 early on. I have once lost all my cards and once had to abandon a large pot I was likely to scoop because I'd missed a discard

My crew plays this with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 (rarely more) hole cards, usually dependent on how many players we have. With 4 hole cards, you can play even in a full 9-handed table. Typically we play "dirty" (losing all cards kills your hand) with 1, 2, or 3 cards and "normal" (losing all cards is a playable 0-point low) with 4 or more. The two versions and the variations in the number of hole cards can play very differently from each other.

We call the 1-card dirty version "Get the Fuck Outta Here," which is then repeated throughout the hand as people's individual cards get killed.

 

[WedgeRock]

the other side of that is a novice player who doesn't notice he has

A novice player may not realize his straight just got counterfeited by a flush. We should make sure the novice player is protected from someone making a better hand.

Obviously, I say that tongue in cheek. A player takes the risks associated with the game (as long as the game is on the level) and shouldn't get special treatment because of inexperience.

 

[Nymor]

Typically we play "dirty" (losing all cards kills your hand) with 1, 2, or 3 cards and "normal" (losing all cards is a playable 0-point low) with 4 or more.

We always play "dirty" - tbh I didn't realise that "normal" was normal? We've played it that way once or twice I think but it's not popular at all as there is no jeopardy and that's no fun

 

[Jimulacrum]

A novice player may not realize his straight just got counterfeited by a flush. We should make sure the novice player is protected from someone making a better hand.

Obviously, I say that tongue in cheek. A player takes the risks associated with the game (as long as the game is on the level) and shouldn't get special treatment because of inexperience.

Sure, but in this case we're talking about a policy that would be explicitly punitive to anyone caught in this situation. My perspective is that punitive measures are good when we can be sure there was wrongdoing. When we're not sure, sometimes those punitive measures can turn into attacking an innocent person in a way that seems profoundly unjust and not the player's fault (especially because it is actually the casino's fault it happened). That's why I don't like a blanket policy that would treat all cases the same when someone plays out a hand that reveals a fouled deck.

 

[Mr Winberg]

If (hypothetically) a house rule was that a hand where a card is supposed to be discarded isn't dead, it is just the worst possible hand in a showdown, how would that change the game? Would people actually try to bluff when their hands get "ruined"? Would the game get more interesting or just more chaotic?

A: Pot!
B: I only have a bluff catcher, but... Call!
A: You got me, I have an undiscarded 9
B: Me to! Chop!

 

[Mr Winberg]

If (hypothetically) a house rule was that a hand where a card is supposed to be discarded isn't dead, it is just the worst possible hand in a showdown, how would that change the game? Would people actually try to bluff when their hands get "ruined"? Would the game get more interesting or just more chaotic?

A: Pot!
B: I only have a bluff catcher, but... Call!
A: You got me, I have an undiscarded 9
B: Me to! Chop!

...or when you actually get the fold:

Spoiler

 

[Josh Kifer]

Fuck no.

 

[Jimulacrum]

If (hypothetically) a house rule was that a hand where a card is supposed to be discarded isn't dead, it is just the worst possible hand in a showdown, how would that change the game? Would people actually try to bluff when their hands get "ruined"? Would the game get more interesting or just more chaotic?

A: Pot!
B: I only have a bluff catcher, but... Call!
A: You got me, I have an undiscarded 9
B: Me to! Chop!

This is how I think about it, if you're playing in a game where uncontested winners don't have to show. The effective rule is that bluffing is allowed even if people don't like the idea and prefer to think of it as a fouled hand. It's just too unenforceable.

TBH I'm not entirely convinced it's enforceable even if you require the winner to show, unless you take the approach @bergs suggested and carefully track everyone's cards from deal to muck, so you can verify whomever you're giving the pot to didn't also have a fouled hand. Seems like a ton of work and risk for a tiny result.

 

[Tight_Lay_DOWN]

Actually, given that the other players could’ve fouled their hand, if there is nobody else left with cards, I would rule that everyone in the hand gets their money back, except perhaps you because we know your hand is fouled.

I am pretty much off the mark on most of these posts, but this is how I have seen this done for many years.

Not sure if this helps, but in games with a qualifier, such as Jacks or Better to open in Five Card Draw, or games that require a qualifier to win, there are a few important rules to keep in mind:

1. ​

Openers Must Be Provable​

If a hand requires a qualifier to open (like a pair of Jacks), the player who opens must be able to prove they had openers at showdown if asked.

• This applies even if the cards are no longer in their hand after the draw.
• For this reason, players are typically required to keep their discards in front of them until the hand concludes.
• It’s critical to clarify this rule before the game starts, especially if the discard pile might be reused (i.e., limited deck and many players).

2. ​

Must Keep Openers Through Draw​

Some house rules go further and state that you must retain your openers through the draw—especially in games where only one draw is allowed.

• This becomes less clear in games like Triple Draw, but those games don't usually require a qualifier to open, so that rule doesn’t usually apply there.

3. ​

Qualifiers to Win​

In games where a qualifier is required to win the pot (not just to open), players must show their hand at showdown to claim the pot—even if everyone else has folded.

4. ​

If a Player Shows a Fouled Hand​

If a player reaches showdown and their hand is fouled (e.g., not enough cards, mismatched cards, etc.), and they cannot win, the table has two common options:

Option 1: ​

Attempt to Reconstruct the Pot​

• If possible, reconstruct all bets and return them to the respective players.
• This is preferred but can be difficult, especially in a multi-way pot.
• If other players folded to what turned out to be a fouled hand, it’s technically unfair to award the pot to only people still in and to exclude people who were in and then folded, since their decisions may have been based on invalid actions by the player.

Option 2: ​

Splash the Pot for the Next Hand​

• Use the pot as a “splash pot” to start the next hand.
• Keep the button in the same position.
• The player who showed the fouled hand is not allowed to play the next hand as a penalty.

Anyway - this is what I have seen... Your milage may be different, and these Circus games may have different rules.