Trying to figure out which of the 1,391 variants of Scarney I'm going to present to a local group, and in doing so I've been running hands at home trying to get a feel. Probably the biggest sticking point is bet/no bet when you have no cards in the mitt. I initially bristled at the thought of still being about to claim part of the pot without being able to bet. I can see some instances where being able to bet could be beneficial, but, I think one settled on that being able to bet with no cards would likely offer little benefits, with the likelihood of costing you more money in the event that you end up fractionalizing the low. Thoughts? I know I'm over thinking it, but, that's what I do.
-
PCF is an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Scarney Betting/Thought Process (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter KHarp1
- Start date
I'm in the camp that if your run out of cards, youre hand is dead.
Strongly recommend Icelandic:
No cards = no hand = no good.
Keep it clean and simple: no replacement or killing or other variants. A folded hand should not look like a winning hand. $0.02
No cards = no hand = no good.
Keep it clean and simple: no replacement or killing or other variants. A folded hand should not look like a winning hand. $0.02
Last edited:
ekricket
Royal Flush
I think that the risk of losing is offset by the huge advantage of having only one card or two paired cards. I don’t think having a lone ace should give you license to run the pot up without risk.
But I’ll play any of them. Waiting for Archie Scarney, where you have to have at least four points to claim low and a flush or better for high qualifier. Scarchie
But I’ll play any of them. Waiting for Archie Scarney, where you have to have at least four points to claim low and a flush or better for high qualifier. Scarchie
Ok, so 1,392 versions and counting.
Dealing with the versions that are currently out there, I can see the benefit, occasionally, if having no cards after the flop, or, turn, and applying pressure by betting, building the pot.
Yes, its a ridiculous game in the sense that it's degen gambling where strategy is less critical than say Omaha, but, one still needs a little strategy.
LotsOfChips
Flush
Pot, MotherF%^&er is a strategy...
JMC9389
Royal Flush
Icelandic is the way to go.
That way there's a little bit of risk when you're playing for the low pips part of the pot. Pile in money because you're down to one card after the flop? You risk your hand being ruled dead on the next two streets.
Max pain=better instead of luckboxing into half the pot.
That way there's a little bit of risk when you're playing for the low pips part of the pot. Pile in money because you're down to one card after the flop? You risk your hand being ruled dead on the next two streets.
Max pain=better instead of luckboxing into half the pot.
Agreed with this. I was potting with only one card left, with one card still to come, and it felt uncomfortable. Loved it.
Which version of Scarney one chooses can be directly correlated to their political leanings
Felt_Lizard
Full House
I GO BOTH WAYS, SUCK IT PCF !!!
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
I strongly disagree with this thought. In fact, I personally believe that Scarney is the most strategic game of the circus games. You have a ton of information at your fingertips. Opening ranges are critical to success.
I don't have hard data to back it up, but Scarney may be the only game I am profitable at - but I like stud. Stud is another high information game that is often played poorly (and is seldom called at meetups).
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
lets not forget another polarizing factor...
to bomb pot or not to bomb pot.
I prefer bomb pot, as so much changes after the flop and people that would usually fold suddenly find themselves with great developing hands.
Best version of Scarney:
Icelandic
Bomb Pot
5 cards in Mitt and 7 card board. (4 flop, 2 turn, 1 river)
to bomb pot or not to bomb pot.
I prefer bomb pot, as so much changes after the flop and people that would usually fold suddenly find themselves with great developing hands.
Best version of Scarney:
Icelandic
Bomb Pot
5 cards in Mitt and 7 card board. (4 flop, 2 turn, 1 river)
I choose Canadian when I call Scarney. It's a compromise of the other 2 versions I guess.
MrCatPants
Full House
Canadian Bomb Pot No Ghost All Alive and Unreplaced
MrCatPants
Full House
But - for real 'argument'...
Icelandic would be the only game where an action can literally prevent you from winning a pot you have contributed to, which in my view ain't right. It's not the same as 'counterfeiting' as in those cases you can still bluff or still win with a hand that was downgraded. Fouling is too harsh a penalty.
Icelandic would be the only game where an action can literally prevent you from winning a pot you have contributed to, which in my view ain't right. It's not the same as 'counterfeiting' as in those cases you can still bluff or still win with a hand that was downgraded. Fouling is too harsh a penalty.
Last edited:
i am confused - what is the purpose of a bomb pot in scarney? is there otherwise any possible hand i should fold pre-flop?
JMC9389
Royal Flush
I'd fold Q 10 9 8 5 nonsuited. Straights never hold and you're going to be second best even if a flush ends up winning it. You'd have to get extraordinarily lucky to have a shot at the low.
without even seeing the boards??
there's a low??
what the fuck game am i playing?
JMC9389
Royal Flush
Low pips*
For the record, I prefer the bomb pot format. But I can't think of a single time I won with a similar hand. I'd have to flop at least Qx two pair to continue.
ekricket
Royal Flush
This. I think statistically I’m going to lose two cards. If I don’t have a shot at a low with my three lowest or a straight flush draw with any 2-3 cards I usually don’t consider seeing a flop. High pair maybe just to see them on the wrong board occasionally. But yeah, I’d rather take a small hand break sometimes with marginal hands and not have to play every hand of every orbit.
When you have to call every hand of every orbit because you are afraid your trash hand will print money it kinda sounds like you might evaluate your poker strategy. I know some players that play hold-em like that with the same mindset, lol.
Oh boy...here comes @detroitdad for sure
Fuck bomb pots. I want to be able to fold or raise pre.
I believe 3, 2, 1 is superior as it allows 8 players with all 52 cards dealt. Any prematurely exposed cards go face up on the bottom discard row. OFCP is also table stakes.
I’ve been playing this game recently, and my group is pretty evenly split on one particular rule: what happens when a player runs out of cards.
Camp 1:
Half the table feels that if you run out of cards, you’re done, no claim to the pot. Their logic is that in any other poker game, if you don’t have cards in front of you, you can’t contest the hand or the pot. Same principle here.
Camp 2:
The other half agrees that you shouldn’t be able to bet or raise indefinitely with no cards, but they don’t think you should be penalized for having a “good” hand in a game where the goal is to end with the fewest points. In their view, if you’ve lost all your cards, you effectively have zero points, which is the best possible outcome, and sometimes you could even tie with another player who also has zero.
To keep everyone happy, we’ve been playing one orbit each way.
For the “you can still win low with no cards” version, we use a simple marker system: if a player was in for the pot but runs out of cards, the dealer gives them a chip that says “On Your Honor” (it’s actually a chip I have from the game Screw Your Neighbor). That chip sits in front of them and indicates they’re still eligible to contest the low side of the pot at showdown, even though they don’t have any cards left.
You don’t need a custom chip for this - you can use a reserved button or any distinct token. The key is that it clearly shows which players are still “live” for the pot despite having no cards, and it removes any ambiguity at the end of the hand.
So far, this compromise has worked well for us and keeps both camps reasonably satisfied.
Camp 1:
Half the table feels that if you run out of cards, you’re done, no claim to the pot. Their logic is that in any other poker game, if you don’t have cards in front of you, you can’t contest the hand or the pot. Same principle here.
Camp 2:
The other half agrees that you shouldn’t be able to bet or raise indefinitely with no cards, but they don’t think you should be penalized for having a “good” hand in a game where the goal is to end with the fewest points. In their view, if you’ve lost all your cards, you effectively have zero points, which is the best possible outcome, and sometimes you could even tie with another player who also has zero.
To keep everyone happy, we’ve been playing one orbit each way.
For the “you can still win low with no cards” version, we use a simple marker system: if a player was in for the pot but runs out of cards, the dealer gives them a chip that says “On Your Honor” (it’s actually a chip I have from the game Screw Your Neighbor). That chip sits in front of them and indicates they’re still eligible to contest the low side of the pot at showdown, even though they don’t have any cards left.
You don’t need a custom chip for this - you can use a reserved button or any distinct token. The key is that it clearly shows which players are still “live” for the pot despite having no cards, and it removes any ambiguity at the end of the hand.
So far, this compromise has worked well for us and keeps both camps reasonably satisfied.
Jimulacrum
Full House
I played this with a group that called it with different numbers of hole cards, usually depending on the number of players.
With 3 or fewer hole cards, we'd play it "dirty" (losing all cards = dead hand).
With 5 or more hole cards, we'd play it the normal way, where no cards = 0 points = nut low, with no restrictions on betting.
With 4 hole cards, it could go either way.
I don't actually have a strong preference about it. Obviously low hands become more difficult to play in the dirty variants, and the normal variants offer a particular mega-advantage once in a great while if someone catches a nut low, but it's also very rare. Both versions are quite playable.
The fact that a 0-point low materially looks the same as a folded hand does kinda suck; it would be nice to have a lammer or something to make it very clear when someone's "holding" 0 points versus folded.
I'm not a fan of "You can be in the hand, but you just can't bet" as it applies to a 0-point low in some variants. I get why people like it. I just don't agree. Once someone gets to 0 points, it's going to affect the dynamics of the hand in extreme ways, and I say just let it fly. It's better than forbidding the only guy in the hand who should actually want to bet from doing so.
With 3 or fewer hole cards, we'd play it "dirty" (losing all cards = dead hand).
With 5 or more hole cards, we'd play it the normal way, where no cards = 0 points = nut low, with no restrictions on betting.
With 4 hole cards, it could go either way.
I don't actually have a strong preference about it. Obviously low hands become more difficult to play in the dirty variants, and the normal variants offer a particular mega-advantage once in a great while if someone catches a nut low, but it's also very rare. Both versions are quite playable.
The fact that a 0-point low materially looks the same as a folded hand does kinda suck; it would be nice to have a lammer or something to make it very clear when someone's "holding" 0 points versus folded.
I'm not a fan of "You can be in the hand, but you just can't bet" as it applies to a 0-point low in some variants. I get why people like it. I just don't agree. Once someone gets to 0 points, it's going to affect the dynamics of the hand in extreme ways, and I say just let it fly. It's better than forbidding the only guy in the hand who should actually want to bet from doing so.
This has been a point of contention as well...I think this why my particular Group might stay away from this all together in the future.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
