Scarney Betting/Thought Process (2 Viewers)

[KHarp1]

I'm on the side of no cards means you have a nut low, unless you're playing with the caveat that ecricket mentioned, having to have a qualifier for a low, therefore, you bet the heck out of it. True, it's not like other poker games, but, that's the point. It's a different game with different rules, not every card game has to be played the exact same way. In every other game, if you have the nuts your expected to bet it. This puts pressure on the person that's second hi nuts to decide if he wants to take the chance and stay. The object of most of these games are to extract as much money as possible from your opponents. I don't like the idea of having a stake in the game and not being able to effect the outcome.

 

[raynmanas]

fwiw, i'm in the no cards = you're out camp.

poker is first and foremost a game of hidden information - so if you have none of that to offer, you should not be in the hand. too bad, so sad.

but i'll still play either way.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

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.

Fair, but I look at games like Razz: your board may make it impossible to win and its clear. In my head this is a closer cousin to the Scarney no cards scenario, the runout has shut the door on winning the pot when a King hits or something. It's definitely more dangerous because it goes from fantastic odds to 0 odds, but it happens. Another game with tons of face up information.

I wouldn't refer to the discard being required as an action. I guess in my head an action is a player's choice, a decision made rather than a runout. I think there's lots of actions around discards that can foul your hand (failing to discard in pineapple/scarney, not discarding enough in 5 card draw), but those are decisions made.

I will play any type and enjoy it and theorize about it, I just personally hate the idea of no-cards being able to contest a pot and I love the idea of one card having a big sweat whether their hand gets killed. Part of the thought process in betting.

 

[MrCatPants]

Fair, but I look at games like Razz: your board may make it impossible to win and its clear. In my head this is a closer cousin to the Scarney no cards scenario, the runout has shut the door on winning the pot when a King hits or something. It's definitely more dangerous because it goes from fantastic odds to 0 odds, but it happens. Another game with tons of face up information.

I wouldn't refer to the discard being required as an action. I guess in my head an action is a player's choice, a decision made rather than a runout. I think there's lots of actions around discards that can foul your hand (failing to discard in pineapple/scarney, not discarding enough in 5 card draw), but those are decisions made.

I will play any type and enjoy it and theorize about it, I just personally hate the idea of no-cards being able to contest a pot and I love the idea of one card having a big sweat whether their hand gets killed. Part of the thought process in betting.

I hear you. But even in razz there is no qualifier and you can still bluff.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I hear you. But even in razz there is no qualifier and you can still bluff.

You know what you're right, in my head I pictured 5 up cards for some reason, nope, could bluff even with a crazy bad board.

There's still situations that make it impossible to win. xxKKKQx showing versus xx2467x. You can bluff but you're going to lose. I don't mean to be argumentative, but you've got me thinking about situations where yes you're technically still allowed to bet but there's no reason to. Meh, I don't like the connection though because it doesn't go from a very strong hand to crap.

You're right that it's a crazy situation though and I see your POV.

 

[MrCatPants]

You know what you're right, in my head I pictured 5 up cards for some reason, nope, could bluff even with a crazy bad board.

There's still situations that make it impossible to win. xxKKKQx showing versus xx2467x. You can bluff but you're going to lose. I don't mean to be argumentative, but you've got me thinking about situations where yes you're technically still allowed to bet but there's no reason to. Meh, I don't like the connection though because it doesn't go from a very strong hand to crap.

You're right that it's a crazy situation though and I see your POV.

I feel seen

 

[shorticus]

I don’t mind playing scarney, but I prefer no cards is the nut low and you can’t bet. I don’t play a lot of circus (except for meetups), and I’ve never seen someone discard every card so doing so should absolutely be a win.

 

[Poker Zombie]

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.

View attachment 1611002

I think Icelandic is the best. Nothing like the sweat when you only have one card - also the tell your opponents have when sweating one card, and reading tells is the most integral part of poker IMO.

However, I cannot disagree with anything that adds extra chips to the game.

 

[acezag]

A big part of the fun of Scarney is the inescapable tension - there are no safe hands. And in Icelandic, the closest thing there is to a "made" hand is also the most potentially precarious.

IMO the point of the game is learning to ride these waves making smart decisions and reading other players. Canadian's still fun, but it definitely removes a key part of that tension.

 

[detroitdad]

will play any type and enjoy it and theorize about it, I just personally hate the idea of no-cards being able to contest a pot and I love the idea of one card having a big sweat whether their hand gets

I 100% agree!

 

[UniLover]

Pot, MotherF%^&er is a strategy...

Wait, you guys play limit?!