Cash Game Scarney: Can a Dead Hand Bluff? (6 Viewers)

[Jimulacrum]

There's a fine point of Scarney rules I've never had a chance to explore because it's so niche, and you may not even know if a player has done it. But being nerdy and obsessed with poker games like I am, it scratches at my brain from time to time.

Suppose you notice on the turn that you have the in your hand, which should have been discarded on the flop.

1. Should you still be able to bluff your way to a win, even after you notice the 9? Is it a fair point of strategy to attempt this, or more like an infraction or angle?

2. Similarly, in versions of the game where losing all your cards kills your hand, is it fair game to pretend the board didn't kill your hand? Can you hold onto your last card(s) and try to bluff your way to a win with a hand that will be dead if you have to show it down?

Obviously it's very unusual to bluff your way to winning a whole pot in Scarney. At most you can sometimes get a better high hand to fold or a better low hand to fold, but very seldom both. I'm more interested in the principle of the rule.

 

[detroitdad]

My house rules are you may roll your hand over to win a pot.

 

[Hornet]

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.

 

[TheBigTater]

If you bet and there is no more action, all fold, I believe you would still need to show down your hand to make sure/prove it isn't foul. If a dead card is not discarded before the betting round then that hand is dead, IMO.

The next question would be how to reconstruct the hand for those that previously folded to the illegal/dead hand???

 

[Jimulacrum]

My house rules are you may roll your hand over to win a pot.

Meaning you have to show even if the pot is uncontested? Just in Scarney or any other games?

 

[detroitdad]

Meaning you have to show even if the pot is uncontested? Just in Scarney or any other games?

Yes. Just in scarney

 

[Jimulacrum]

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.

How do you enforce this, exactly? The spirit of the rule is quite clear, but it relies on information that can easily be concealed or falsified (mainly, if and at what point the player realized his hand was dead).

Suppose in my example, I just bet and bet to the end, and my opponents ultimately fold. The bets stack up like this:

• Preflop: Just $1 antes because it's a bomb pot. Total pot $6.
• Flop: Three players in for $5 each. Total pot $21. (This is the round when the 9 hits the kill board. Assume my hand is still live until the turn falls.)
• Turn: Three players in for $10 each. Total pot $51. (This is the first round when my hand is dead.)
• River: I bet $50 and both opponents fold.

I show my hand down to claim the uncontested pot, per this rule that you and @detroitdad have suggested. The is revealed. An uproar ensues.

Pardon all the questions, but I'm asking because I have heard this perspective and find it very easy to poke holes in.

Do I get to keep any part of that $51 pot? Do I get back the uncalled $50? (And if I don't, who gets it?) If I can't win any or all of the pot, to whom do you award it? Do they need to table their own cards to prove their hands weren't also fouled? What if their hands are irretrievable and my hand is the only one left with identifiable cards?

Suppose an alternative case where I muck my cards, innocently or otherwise, after all other players' cards have also been mucked. What do you do then?

I mean these questions not just to you but to everyone.

 

[Jimulacrum]

If you bet and there is no more action, all fold, I believe you would still need to show down your hand to make sure/prove it isn't foul. If a dead card is not discarded before the betting round then that hand is dead, IMO.

The next question would be how to reconstruct the hand for those that previously folded to the illegal/dead hand???

Right, as I suggested above, this is where it gets very hairy. Even if we agree in spirit that the hand shouldn't be played, how do you rule on the cases where it does happen? What are you actually reconstructing and on what basis? Who gets what back?

 

[Hornet]

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.

 

[TheBigTater]

If the other hands are irretrievable then all hands are dead. Your hand which is identifiable would be dead but since we can see it was dead before the last illegal $50 bet then that would be returned and since

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.

their cards aren't retrievable then I can't verify if those players hands were still live (not fouled) at the beginning of the betting round the remaining $51 dollar pot would be..........

This would be a totally fubar'd hand. F' I hate this freaking scenario.

 

[Hornet]

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.

 

[Jimulacrum]

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.

In my example, there were two players who called the turn and then folded the river. Do any of the particulars of that last round matter, e.g., if one of those players had bet $5 before I raised, and then both folded? And do you mean to say they should split the uncalled $50 as well?

 

[Hornet]

In my example, there were two players who called the turn and then folded the river. Do any of the particulars of that last round matter, e.g., if one of those players had bet $5 before I raised, and then both folded? And do you mean to say they should split the uncalled $50 as well?

I don’t think the particulars of the action on the last round matter, but after thinking about this more I think those two players shouldn’t be able to win a pot without showing their cards. So everyone would chop the pot but the known fouler. I don’t think the uncalled bet should get chopped.

 

[Deucekies]

This reminds me of an old story where TJ Cloutier supposedly bluffed at a pot with no cards and wound up winning.

The dealer accidentally mucked his hand, but he used his big arms to hide where his cards would normally be. He announced raise and everyone folded. The pot was pushed to him before anyone realized he had no cards. And at least at the time, the rule was the pot cannot be unpushed.

 

[TheBigTater]

I don't think the pot can be rewarded to anyone that can't show a legal hand at this point.

I don't have a RROP handy but what is the rule for distributing the pot when all hands are dead???

 

[Jimulacrum]

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.

However:

If the other hands are irretrievable then all hands are dead. Your hand which is identifiable would be dead but since we can see it was dead before the last illegal $50 bet then that would be returned and since



their cards aren't retrievable then I can't verify if those players hands were still live (not fouled) at the beginning of the betting round the remaining $51 dollar pot would be..........

This would be a totally fubar'd hand. F' I hate this freaking scenario.

This is more the boat I find myself in. I don't mind the idea of a hand-fouling mechanic in this game, but I hate the scenarios it causes if you ever have to take any kind of enforcement action. It's hard to see this as a viable rule unless it comes with a long list of instructions about how to rectify the various cases that can arise, and all without knowing whether the player ever realized he was riding a dead pony.

I see multiple people who require a tabled hand to claim an uncontested pot just in the first few replies. I have to wonder if there's anyone out there who has actually had this happen and had to figure out what to do with the pot. Clearly the intent to disqualify the hand is established by requiring it to be tabled. The whole point of this is to identify dead hands. But then what?

It leaves me scratching my head. Seems like one of those situations where someone's always going to be upset, the host is going to be flustered about how to handle the ruling, and it's going to feel weird for everyone in the end. I prefer to avoid that if I can.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I don’t think the particulars of the action on the last round matter, but after thinking about this more I think those two players shouldn’t be able to win a pot without showing their cards. So everyone would chop the pot but the known fouler. I don’t think the uncalled bet should get chopped.

I agree about the uncalled bet.

By "everyone," do you mean all five of the players other than the known fouler? Like they each get $10 (forget the loose $1 for now)? Or do you roll back the action round by round, kinda like the procedure for a fouled deck?

 

[Jimulacrum]

This reminds me of an old story where TJ Cloutier supposedly bluffed at a pot with no cards and wound up winning.

The dealer accidentally mucked his hand, but he used his big arms to hide where his cards would normally be. He announced raise and everyone folded. The pot was pushed to him before anyone realized he had no cards. And at least at the time, the rule was the pot cannot be unpushed.

Last player who still had live cards in hand gets the pot. Should be provable via video cameras if not just observation. I would consider this a pretty egregious angle that he should probably get penalized for.

 

[TheBigTater]

Scarney is ruined & now must be banned in the future..... What have you/we done......

 

[bergs]

I got one hand in of Scarney at a mixed game festival at Resorts World before the entire table squirmed and the floor came over and said “can you suggest an alternative?”. The dealer was having a string of WTAF moments and we hadn’t even gotten to this scenario.

 

[bergs]

There is an argument to be made that folded hands should be organized by the dealer some way to be discoverable on that street (and can be mucked on subsequent streets). If someone fouls, the last remaining players with recoverable valid hands split the pot.

 

[TheBigTater]

There is an argument to be made that folded hands should be organized by the dealer some way to be discoverable on that street (and can be mucked on subsequent streets). If someone fouls, the last remaining players with recoverable valid hands split the pot.

If that could be done then I could see splitting the pot between the remaining players with a valid hand.

More dealer overhead for sure......

 

[Jimulacrum]

I don't think the pot can be rewarded to anyone that can't show a legal hand at this point.

Yeah, I'm kinda stuck here too. I like my poker rulings to be based on concrete facts and consistent logic that I can spell out for everyone. If everyone has to show a hand to win a pot, it's hard to justify why we should simultaneously enforce this rule harshly against one player while waiving it for two others.

I don't have a RROP handy but what is the rule for distributing the pot when all hands are dead???

As far as I know, there's no explicit rule on this in RROP or TDA, because in theory it should never happen. There should always be a way to identify the last player who had cards, and that is the last player who has any claim to the pot (and in general doesn't have to reveal the cards to exercise it).

But suppose everyone gets really stupid at showdown, and three players all pitch their cards irretrievably into the muck at the exact same time. Even suppose it happens on an earlier round, with the action still open. The lands, and it shits on everyone's hand so badly that they all instantly rage-fold.

I think, in that case, you have to just chop the pot among those three players. They're the last players to have any claim to the pot, and they all forfeited it at the same time. I don't see any other way. The house sure as shit can't keep it.

 

[Hornet]

Or do you roll back the action round by round, kinda like the procedure for a fouled deck?

I would do this. Basically undo the hand.

 

[Jimulacrum]

There is an argument to be made that folded hands should be organized by the dealer some way to be discoverable on that street (and can be mucked on subsequent streets). If someone fouls, the last remaining players with recoverable valid hands split the pot.

This sounds crazy to manage and so easy for individual players to derail. If I had to do this to play a hand of Scarney, I'd never call it.

But I agree that, if you are going to require a tabled hand with the intent of fouled hands being DQed after everyone else folds, you probably do need a thorough procedure like this, that lets you walk back all the action and establish hand liveness for the purpose of awarding the pot.

It's kinda part of the problem with saying the only guy who still has cards left can't win, because it's so standard in all other forms of poker for the last man standing to take the pot.* Okay, he has a fouled hand, but if he can't win then who can? And how do you justify allowing someone who folded to still have a claim on anything? The result is an overhaul of general game mechanics and procedures that seems like way more trouble than it's worth.

Spoiler: *

Only other game I can think of where this comes up is Jacks or Better, Trips to Win. You're not supposed to bet without jacks or better; failing to have this when you bet on the first round renders your hand fouled. (You can bluff to a win without trips, though, if I understand correctly. You just need trips to win at showdown, or else the hand restarts.) Similar to Scarney, no one actually sees your cards to be able to verify this until the actions are all complete, so you can theoretically bluff with a fouled hand, even if you'll later have to show it.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I would do this. Basically undo the hand.

This is interesting to me. So it's treated almost like a dealing irregularity, but with a penalty (loss of prior bets) against the fouler.

 

[Frogzilla]

This reminds me of an old story where TJ Cloutier supposedly bluffed at a pot with no cards and wound up winning.

The dealer accidentally mucked his hand, but he used his big arms to hide where his cards would normally be. He announced raise and everyone folded. The pot was pushed to him before anyone realized he had no cards. And at least at the time, the rule was the pot cannot be unpushed.

I’ll ask him about that one next time I see him

Haven’t heard that one before

He loves telling stories though and this one seems interesting

 

[Jimulacrum]

I’ll ask him about that one next time I see him

Haven’t heard that one before

He loves telling stories though and this one seems interesting

Make sure you tell him I called him an angle shooter.

 

[glynn]

This is interesting to me. So it's treated almost like a dealing irregularity, but with a penalty (loss of prior bets) against the fouler.

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:

A player who knows the deck is defective has an obligation to point this out. If such a player instead tries to win a pot by taking aggressive action (trying for a freeroll), the player may lose the right to a refund, and the chips may be required to stay in the pot for the next deal.

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.)

 

[Jimulacrum]

I got one hand in of Scarney at a mixed game festival at Resorts World before the entire table squirmed and the floor came over and said “can you suggest an alternative?”. The dealer was having a string of WTAF moments and we hadn’t even gotten to this scenario.

I play like a dozen variants of this game every week with a group of people who were new to vanilla Omaha just a couple years ago. No professional dealer and everyone handles it just fine, including a perpetually shitfaced guy and a woman in her 80s. I'm a little surprised they balked at it at the mixed game festival.