High Low Declare (1 Viewer)

[DarkHelmet55]

Sorry. Declare is not for everyone.

 

[CrazyEddie]

I just read through this again and a month later, it’s still very frustrating.
I try to put aside my frustrations and get on board and think about how I’d approach these situations and it just gets more frustrating.
I’m not trying to be a jerk this time, I’m just saying, for the sake of science or whatever, that the confusion and frustration is real.

What do you find frustrating?

 

[upNdown]

What do you find frustrating?

The concept that that if you declare low (or high) and tie, you chop, but if you declare both, and you tie one of them, you get nothing.
It seems arbitrary and contrived and it just doesn't make sense to me. There's nothing in my poker experience that says yeah, that makes sense.
And then when I think, okay, this is weird, but how would I adjust my play to exploit it, all those thoughts lead to frustration.
It just seems like that rule exists to discourage scooping and to spread the wealth around more. Which I find . . . frustrating.

 

[BGinGA]

Agreed. If a tie is considered a win in one aspect, it should be considered a win in all aspects. Or if considered not in one, then not in all.

Regardless, declare is just a stupid variant.

 

[CrazyEddie]

The concept that that if you declare low (or high) and tie, you chop, but if you declare both, and you tie one of them, you get nothing.
It seems arbitrary and contrived and it just doesn't make sense to me. There's nothing in my poker experience that says yeah, that makes sense.
And then when I think, okay, this is weird, but how would I adjust my play to exploit it, all those thoughts lead to frustration.
It just seems like that rule exists to discourage scooping and to spread the wealth around more. Which I find . . . frustrating.

To help make sense of it, first consider declare without "both". You decide whether your best prospect to win is to contest for high or to contest for low; you make this decision not only at the showdown, but also continually during the hand as you weigh your options for betting or folding. So that's the same as Cards Speak so far. With Cards Speak, though, your main goal is to scoop - you want a hand that can win both, and the less likely that is the more likely you are to fold. In declare-without-both that's not a consideration; the only way to scoop is if everyone goes the same way. So you're not trying to scoop; you're trying to divine which way everyone else is going to go (and again, this happens not just at the showdown, but continually throughout the hand) and decide whether you can beat everyone who's going to go the same way as you.

This is already unlike your poker experience and so accordingly you might not like it. That's fine; I'm not trying to persuade you it's good, I'm just trying to help you get your head around it and be less frustrated when you contemplate it.

Note that divining which way everyone else is going to go is much more feasible and natural in seven card stud than it is in Omaha, because you have information about everyone else's hands, and everyone's hands are very different. In Omaha you have no information about other people's hands other than how much they like them, and everyone's hands have the same five cards from which they'll include three. This is one reason that declare was common and popular before the poker boom, when people played a lot of stud, but cards speak is nearly universal nowadays, now that people play a lot of Omaha.

The next complication to add to my instructive example is the possibility of stealing half the pot. If you have a garbage hand that doesn't make a good low or high, there is still the possibility that you might steal half the pot if everyone else is going one way and you are the only one who goes the other way even with your crappy hand. This is not possible with Cards Speak, but it's an important factor to consider in Declare. Again, it requires you to divine the intentions of the other players, but again, that's a natural element of stud.

And now the final complication is to add "both". NOW it's possible to play for the scoop, as you would in Cards Speak, but it's different in an important way. In Cards Speak, the scoop is always in play; the possibility of scooping informs your bet-or-fold decisions. In Declare, the scoop is an option, and the betting and cards inform your decision to exercise that option. But in particular, going both ways for the scoop is an option that carries risk. It provides a bigger payout if it succeeds, but a smaller payout if it fails than you would have had if you'd only gone one way. That risk is elevated when using the rule "if you go both ways and lose or tie on either side, you lose the whole thing"; most people play with that rule because most people want going both to be a very risky option.

These differences make Declare not just a quirky way of playing high-low split but rather an entirely different game from Cards Speak, and it needs to be approached entirely differently. You might be less frustrated if you decouple the two games when you think about them. You might not enjoy Declare because it's different from what you're used to, and again that's fine. But lots of people enjoy declare for the very things that make it different - the importance of divining the other players' intentions, the possibility of stealing half the pot, the elevated risk-and-reward involved in the declare decision, and the fact that there is an additional decision that doesn't exist in Cards Speak.

 

[DarkHelmet55]

Thank you Eddie for explaining all of that that was in my head but didnt come out here. You truly know what i was trying to convey but didnt. You are invited to my game anytime. haha. And yes i should have started with the declare is used only in a stud games where you do see the cards of opponents and make decisions based on that. The point in our game is if you go both and lose with an unbeatable hand one of the ways everyone at the table gets to laugh at you for being greedy as you see no part of the pot pulled your way.

 

[upNdown]

To help make sense of it, first consider declare without "both". You decide whether your best prospect to win is to contest for high or to contest for low; you make this decision not only at the showdown, but also continually during the hand as you weigh your options for betting or folding. So that's the same as Cards Speak so far. With Cards Speak, though, your main goal is to scoop - you want a hand that can win both, and the less likely that is the more likely you are to fold. In declare-without-both that's not a consideration; the only way to scoop is if everyone goes the same way. So you're not trying to scoop; you're trying to divine which way everyone else is going to go (and again, this happens not just at the showdown, but continually throughout the hand) and decide whether you can beat everyone who's going to go the same way as you.

This is already unlike your poker experience and so accordingly you might not like it. That's fine; I'm not trying to persuade you it's good, I'm just trying to help you get your head around it and be less frustrated when you contemplate it.

Note that divining which way everyone else is going to go is much more feasible and natural in seven card stud than it is in Omaha, because you have information about everyone else's hands, and everyone's hands are very different. In Omaha you have no information about other people's hands other than how much they like them, and everyone's hands have the same five cards from which they'll include three. This is one reason that declare was common and popular before the poker boom, when people played a lot of stud, but cards speak is nearly universal nowadays, now that people play a lot of Omaha.

The next complication to add to my instructive example is the possibility of stealing half the pot. If you have a garbage hand that doesn't make a good low or high, there is still the possibility that you might steal half the pot if everyone else is going one way and you are the only one who goes the other way even with your crappy hand. This is not possible with Cards Speak, but it's an important factor to consider in Declare. Again, it requires you to divine the intentions of the other players, but again, that's a natural element of stud.

And now the final complication is to add "both". NOW it's possible to play for the scoop, as you would in Cards Speak, but it's different in an important way. In Cards Speak, the scoop is always in play; the possibility of scooping informs your bet-or-fold decisions. In Declare, the scoop is an option, and the betting and cards inform your decision to exercise that option. But in particular, going both ways for the scoop is an option that carries risk. It provides a bigger payout if it succeeds, but a smaller payout if it fails than you would have had if you'd only gone one way. That risk is elevated when using the rule "if you go both ways and lose or tie on either side, you lose the whole thing"; most people play with that rule because most people want going both to be a very risky option.

These differences make Declare not just a quirky way of playing high-low split but rather an entirely different game from Cards Speak, and it needs to be approached entirely differently. You might be less frustrated if you decouple the two games when you think about them. You might not enjoy Declare because it's different from what you're used to, and again that's fine. But lots of people enjoy declare for the very things that make it different - the importance of divining the other players' intentions, the possibility of stealing half the pot, the elevated risk-and-reward involved in the declare decision, and the fact that there is an additional decision that doesn't exist in Cards Speak.

This helps.
I didn’t realize this was only done for stud. The added information of stud makes it more interesting. I was imagining this for PLO8, so it was even more frustrating with a big bet format, than it would be with a limit format.
I still don’t love the idea, but I guess I’d be willing to try it. My objection to the tie issue remains though. You’re selling it as adding risk, going both ways. But there’s already risk associated with going both ways, so I’m still not buying that part of it.

 

[DarkHelmet55]

I think you need the risk part of it because then its not any different from a no declare game. If there is no penalty or risk why not go both every time? Then you dont even need a declare, its cards speak. Its just a different game. Not for everyone i know.

 

[bigdonkey]

I think you need the risk part of it because then its not any different from a no declare game. If there is no penalty or risk why not go both every time? Then you dont even need a declare, its cards speak. Its just a different game. Not for everyone i know.

But there is risk going both ways. If you hold a royal flush and 8 low, and declare both, if some one shows up with a 7 low, you forfeit your claim to the high, which you could’ve guaranteed by declaring high.

My hang-up here is that you could hold the absolute nuts both ways and get nothing. Basically you have to forfeit one of your nut hands if looks like someone ties you. It’s totally strange to me.

 

[JustinInMN]

My hang-up here is that you could hold the absolute nuts both ways and get nothing. Basically you have to forfeit one of your nut hands if looks like someone ties you. It’s totally strange to me.

This is the best wording in this thread about why so many of us have issue with this rule.

 

[ekricket]

What if only two players are left and both go for “win all” and then they have the same hand both ways. Do you flip a coin?

I always play the “win neither” option of this game.

Thank you Eddie for explaining all of that that was in my head but didnt come out here. You truly know what i was trying to convey but didnt. You are invited to my game anytime. haha. And yes i should have started with the declare is used only in a stud games where you do see the cards of opponents and make decisions based on that. The point in our game is if you go both and lose with an unbeatable hand one of the ways everyone at the table gets to laugh at you for being greedy as you see no part of the pot pulled your way.

Do you guys throw pies in each other’s faces and laugh like hell? And the old “pull my finger” trick cracks everyone up so much that you will all end up doing it like 10 times apiece during the night


Do you play this with a BB ante too? Cause that would be hilarious.

 

[DarkHelmet55]

bigdonkey said:
My hang-up here is that you could hold the absolute nuts both ways and get nothing. Basically you have to forfeit one of your nut hands if looks like someone ties you. It’s totally strange to me.

Right. To you thats a hang up and to me thats the beauty of the declare game.

 

[ruskba]

But there is risk going both ways. If you hold a royal flush and 8 low, and declare both, if some one shows up with a 7 low, you forfeit your claim to the high, which you could’ve guaranteed by declaring high.

My hang-up here is that you could hold the absolute nuts both ways and get nothing. Basically you have to forfeit one of your nut hands if looks like someone ties you. It’s totally strange to me.

This is the best wording in this thread about why so many of us have issue with this rule.

Remember, this is best played in stud games. The royal + 8 low isn't possible. Often yes you are holding the nuts one way, but often it's the nut low and then you're figuring out if your high is good enough based on what you see on your opponents' boards. The shared information of stud games makes it a generally well informed decision, so you just have to weigh the risk. It's very interesting when you're playing with people who understand the strategies of trying to snipe a low or high when they can tell their opponents are probably all going the other direction.

 

[CrazyEddie]

You don't have to play with "ties mean you lose both". Some people don't, and play with "losing either means you lose both, but a tie counts as a win" instead. Either is fine. The first makes going both ways a bigger risk, which makes it less common but also makes it more fun when it happens (more fun for the bettor when he wins and more fun for everyone else when he loses). The second is less punishing and will encourage more people to take a shot at going both.

Personally I prefer the first, though. It makes going both feel like an exceptional wager rather than just a normal wager. High or Low is saying "whoever has the better hand gets the pot, and if our hands are the same then we both get it" whereas Both says "I have the best hand at the table, period, no ifs ands or buts" and it's an all-or-nothing proposition.

It feels more interesting and more fun.

 

[CrazyEddie]

What if only two players are left and both go for “win all” and then they have the same hand both ways. Do you flip a coin?

The easiest option is to rule that if all players go both ways then you just resolve high and low separately, as if it had been Cards Speak.

 

[ruskba]

What if only two players are left and both go for “win all” and then they have the same hand both ways. Do you flip a coin?

I always play the “win neither” option of this game.

Do you guys throw pies in each other’s faces and laugh like hell? And the old “pull my finger” trick cracks everyone up so much that you will all end up doing it like 10 times apiece during the night


Do you play this with a BB ante too? Cause that would be hilarious.

You play Scarney by choice, right? I don't think you can make stupid comments like this when you're playing a game where cards disappear from your hand.

 

[ekricket]

You play Scarney by choice, right? I don't think you can make stupid comments like this when you're playing a game where cards disappear from your hand.

I participate when it is called yes. Just like I would participate in this if it was called. I might not play it, but I’ll hold my end of the group responsibility up and get cards. I also play go fish, concentration, uno, whist, euchre, ticket to ride, and many other card games. Would you like to dissect all of them in a whole thread of non related comparisons?

 

[bigdonkey]

Remember, this is best played in stud games. The royal + 8 low isn't possible. Often yes you are holding the nuts one way, but often it's the nut low and then you're figuring out if your high is good enough based on what you see on your opponents' boards. The shared information of stud games makes it a generally well informed decision, so you just have to weigh the risk. It's very interesting when you're playing with people who understand the strategies of trying to snipe a low or high when they can tell their opponents are probably all going the other direction.

But trying to figure out if your high is good is always a part of poker. The thing here is you’re trying to decide if someone merely ties your nut low which could cost you the whole pot.

While a royal plus 8 low might not be possible, an 8 high straight flush is, plus based on what other are showing it can be fact that no else can have a straight flush.

In essence it opens up the possibility of someone with a non-nut hand bluffing someone with the nut hand off of half the pot. I get it, it’s a different strategy. Just not one that I think you should be surprised 95% of players are going to dislike.

 

[ruskba]

I participate when it is called yes. Just like I would participate in this if it was called. I might not play it, but I’ll hold my end of the group responsibility up and get cards. I also play go fish, concentration, uno, whist, euchre, ticket to ride, and many other card games. Would you like to dissect all of them in a whole thread of non related comparisons?

If it’s so cut and dried why was this thread started? In my world we don’t play crack house poker. We don’t need to make shit up and change it midstream when it’s unclear. In my world we play poker with poker players not go fish games with children.
In your world what happens if a guy has three pairs? This shit is right up there with that.
Got shoelaces? Sorry, here slipons win ties, it’s about that smart.

I participate when it is called yes. Just like I would participate in this if it was called. I might not play it, but I’ll hold my end of the group responsibility up and get cards. I also play go fish, concentration, uno, whist, euchre, ticket to ride, and many other card games. Would you like to dissect all of them in a whole thread of non related comparisons?

If you want to talk about someone bringing up unrelated shit, you might as well look in the mirror.

We get it, you don't like declare. Some people are having a reasonable discussion but you can't help yourself with incessant trolling. Go away.

 

[ekricket]

If you want to talk about someone bringing up unrelated shit, you might as well look in the mirror.

We get it, you don't like declare. Some people are having a reasonable discussion but you can't help yourself with incessant trolling. Go away.

Ahhh, disagree with your viewpoint and that’s it, just cancel. Got it.

 

[CrazyEddie]

don't take the bait

 

[ruskba]

@bigdonkey is disagreeing, you are trolling.

 

[ekricket]

We get it, you don't like declare. Some people are having a reasonable discussion but you can't help yourself with incessant trolling. Go away.

I could just as easily say “you like declare we get it”. Now quit bothering those of us that don’t like it and go away. Just quit it.

 

[ruskba]

This thread is asking about a situation in a declare game, and you think the people who like to play declare should stop posting in it?

 

[gmunny]

To help make sense of it, first consider declare without "both". You decide whether your best prospect to win is to contest for high or to contest for low; you make this decision not only at the showdown, but also continually during the hand as you weigh your options for betting or folding. So that's the same as Cards Speak so far. With Cards Speak, though, your main goal is to scoop - you want a hand that can win both, and the less likely that is the more likely you are to fold. In declare-without-both that's not a consideration; the only way to scoop is if everyone goes the same way. So you're not trying to scoop; you're trying to divine which way everyone else is going to go (and again, this happens not just at the showdown, but continually throughout the hand) and decide whether you can beat everyone who's going to go the same way as you.

This is already unlike your poker experience and so accordingly you might not like it. That's fine; I'm not trying to persuade you it's good, I'm just trying to help you get your head around it and be less frustrated when you contemplate it.

Note that divining which way everyone else is going to go is much more feasible and natural in seven card stud than it is in Omaha, because you have information about everyone else's hands, and everyone's hands are very different. In Omaha you have no information about other people's hands other than how much they like them, and everyone's hands have the same five cards from which they'll include three. This is one reason that declare was common and popular before the poker boom, when people played a lot of stud, but cards speak is nearly universal nowadays, now that people play a lot of Omaha.

The next complication to add to my instructive example is the possibility of stealing half the pot. If you have a garbage hand that doesn't make a good low or high, there is still the possibility that you might steal half the pot if everyone else is going one way and you are the only one who goes the other way even with your crappy hand. This is not possible with Cards Speak, but it's an important factor to consider in Declare. Again, it requires you to divine the intentions of the other players, but again, that's a natural element of stud.

And now the final complication is to add "both". NOW it's possible to play for the scoop, as you would in Cards Speak, but it's different in an important way. In Cards Speak, the scoop is always in play; the possibility of scooping informs your bet-or-fold decisions. In Declare, the scoop is an option, and the betting and cards inform your decision to exercise that option. But in particular, going both ways for the scoop is an option that carries risk. It provides a bigger payout if it succeeds, but a smaller payout if it fails than you would have had if you'd only gone one way. That risk is elevated when using the rule "if you go both ways and lose or tie on either side, you lose the whole thing"; most people play with that rule because most people want going both to be a very risky option.

These differences make Declare not just a quirky way of playing high-low split but rather an entirely different game from Cards Speak, and it needs to be approached entirely differently. You might be less frustrated if you decouple the two games when you think about them. You might not enjoy Declare because it's different from what you're used to, and again that's fine. But lots of people enjoy declare for the very things that make it different - the importance of divining the other players' intentions, the possibility of stealing half the pot, the elevated risk-and-reward involved in the declare decision, and the fact that there is an additional decision that doesn't exist in Cards Speak.

Great explanation, Eddie. Though not sure its worth the work. There will be people that enjoy these type of games and those that don't. I think most of the old time home poker players growing up with these kind of games are more open to this vs the newer generation of players that grew up on Hold Em and Omaha.

For those naysayers, its fine that you don't like the variation. That's fine and its fine to state the reasons why you don't like it. Just stop being so negative and just because you don't like it doesn't mean that others should not be playing them. Games are for fun as long as me and my crew are having fun and I don't give rats ass who else doesn't like it. Just my .02 anyhow.

 

[Papasatyr]

Sorry. Declare is not for everyone.

I almost want to say it’s not for anyone. Eight or better is vastly superior! I call declare “hi-lo for grandpa”.

Somewhat hypocritically ironic, given I solely host limit games in a no-limit era.