Is that how it's worded? Or is it worded "Omaha players must flop their high hand?" Because there's a difference.The issue is if your high hand for the bonus only counts the flop, so the turn and river don't count for the high hand bonus
Is that how it's worded? Or is it worded "Omaha players must flop their high hand?" Because there's a difference.The issue is if your high hand for the bonus only counts the flop, so the turn and river don't count for the high hand bonus
I should have said should. Have to ask @Anthony Martino for the actual wording.Is that how it's worded? Or is it worded "Omaha players must flop their high hand?" Because there's a difference.
Pretty sure he posted it at some pointI should have said should. Have to ask @Anthony Martino for the actual wording.
But in this scenario, the high hand is only counted after the flop. So it is just the first 7 cards, that way the casino can combine the NLHE table with the PLO taable for the high hand bonus.
The issue is if your high hand for the bonus only counts the flop, so the turn and river don't count for the high hand bonus, whether it make your hand better or not. The turn and river shouldn't counterfeit a hand for the high hand bonus, it should be strictly on the first 7 cards. If they want to allow the turn and river to possibly make a better hand and invalidate a PLO hand, then 2 more card should be dealt on the NLHE to give those players the same possibility to counterfeit their hands.
I gotcha. I'm just saying I don't really care if it doesn't help the casino at all. I'm not sure what "fair" even is, unless we're talking = chance between games to win the high hand. How does seeing flops change from game to game (PLO to hold em), how many hands from hold em make it to the river to possibly have the full amount of cards to have a high hand, etc. All of that needs to be churned and thought about if they're somehow trying to make the chances as even as possible between the two games to hit the high hand bonus.The casino needs to make it equitable between the Omaha and Hold 'Em tables, or have two separate high hand bonuses for each games.
I'm not sure, does it? Because the HE player has to get through 3 streets of betting to see his 7th card. The PLO player only has to get through one street.It gives the NLHE players an advantage for the bonus, but maybe the casino wants it that way.
But they looked at the language of their rule and it mentions "best hand"
Good points that I did not consider.I gotcha. I'm just saying I don't really care if it doesn't help the casino at all. I'm not sure what "fair" even is, unless we're talking = chance between games to win the high hand. How does seeing flops change from game to game (PLO to hold em), how many hands from hold em make it to the river to possibly have the full amount of cards to have a high hand, etc. All of that needs to be churned and thought about if they're somehow trying to make the chances as even as possible between the two games to hit the high hand bonus.
7 cards vs 7 first cards may not make it equitable if the games are played differently. But then you say, we'll that's up to how the players play the game. But then the hold em players complain that it's not fair to them because everyone plays the two games differently, it's not just that they're being tight pre. Just some additional thoughts.
Good points that I did not consider.
But then again I don't choose to play or where to play based on the high hand bonus or the bad beat jackpot, more concerned with the rake and the type of players in the game. But an interesting thread none the less.
Explain to me like I’m five how a kicker is at all relevant with quads? Four queens is four queens regardless if the kicker is a two or an ace. Kickers are only relevant when two hands are tied. There is no tie with quads, unless, in my example, there are three queens on the board and two players each have one of the remaining other two queens. In which case their kickers play and the table definitely needs a new deck and a new dealer.
So playing there. Let the room manager know why you're leaving and not playing in his room anymore (not because of the rules, but more because you were told the rules were gonna change this month and they did not change)...
Lol, Tampa Hard Rock wouldn't give two fucks, and I kinda need to play there to keep my cats fed
I was kinda hoping that wasn't the case...that you didn't need toplaywork there.
They only way they are gonna care is if they start losing money because of their rules... If they players aren't willing to play elsewhere, the casino isn't going to care how the Omaha players feel about the HHJ rake.
Would Lucky's spread PLO more often if they got the players? Talk to the table (out loud for the dealer and floor to hear) about moving the game over there and see what the interest is... I realize you don't want to only move all the pros, you need the fish to come too, so it probably doesn't work, but expressing your dis-satisfaction and willingness to play at another room (and more importantly, pay the rake somewhere else) might get the casino to rethink it's policy.
Also, I think the rule has good intentions... I can't believe that they set out to screw PLO players. Obviously, they changed the rules for a legitimate reason. Maybe they are pulling more rake from HE than PLO and the HE crowd has a louder voice.
Plo has xx22
Flop 229
So his flopped hand is quad 2's with a 9 kicker
We HAVE to flop our high hand, we can't make it on the turn or river, so for high hand qualification the turn and river shouldn't be considered, imo
1. Your right if it is clearly stated in the rules as such than it is ruled on correctly.
2. From a fairness standpoint it doesn't holdup. It is a payout shared across games so the 7 cards in NLHE can be used against the first 7 cards in PLO. If a PLO hand can become unqualified on the turn and river than a NLHE hand should have to withstand conterfeiting with 2 more cards. The contest is not comparing PLO hands to NLHE hands, but the NLHE hand to the first 7 cards dealt in a PLO game.
IMO, without knowing the rules, the hand should qualify as Quad 2s with a 9 kicker, as I think that is within the spirit of the contest.
Do they end up paying the actual high hand winner (PLO or Hold Em) less than what they would've paid the winner? Or is this assuming that the whole room won't have any qualifying hands that run, pockets the money, and resets the pot/rake for HH bonus?Are you competing against your own hand? Complete nonsense, the cheap pricks just dont want to payout.