Cash Game Scarney Variant Dead Hand Messes (1 Viewer)

Jimulacrum

Full House
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
4,171
Location
Pone
My Wednesday-night group took a liking to Scarney, and eventually we started playing a variant of it called Georgie, where the kill board does kill cards from the live board. I actually prefer it over Scarney now.

Anyway, game is ante of 1, and action begins on the flop, bomb-pot style. Three players—A, B, and C—are involved in messy hand-killing spots in two different hands.

Hand 1: Player A bets pot on an obvious strong high hand (still has all his cards) on the flop. There is a 2 on the kill board at this point. He gets called in a few places. On the turn, he bets 30 into a pot of 40–50. Player B calls all-in for less, 11. Player A then removes a 2 from his hand and throws it on the flop kill board.

Player C has not yet acted, and there is at least one other player behind Player C who also has not acted. Player A's hand has to be dead, but how do you rule on the betting action?

Hand 2: Player B gets heads-up with Player C. River on the kill board is a T. I don't recall the exact sequence of action, but I know no one is all-in (both still have chips at showdown), so both players took their actions after the last board cards were dealt out. It may have gone bet-call or check-check. Player B turns up his hand at showdown and has quads, but also has a T he didn't discard. Player C has a solid low but no high.

Player B wandered over to the game for the first time last week, claiming to have never played live poker before, to put him in context. He donated like 5 rebuys last week and is in for another 5. Seems shy but has taken to circus games quickly. This the first hand in two sessions where he has taken the betting lead.

Not that any of that changes the rules of the game, but damn it did not feel good to tell that kid his hand was dead.
 
Yea Scarney is such a fun game and a favorite in my group as well. We drink during poker nights so you can imagine how that makes this game even more interesting lol

Sucks for player B on the second hand but we've had similiar stuff happen when they were so excited and zoned into their good hand thei just didn't see or focus on the discards and ended up losing the pot.
 
My Wednesday-night group took a liking to Scarney, and eventually we started playing a variant of it called Georgie, where the kill board does kill cards from the live board. I actually prefer it over Scarney now.

Anyway, game is ante of 1, and action begins on the flop, bomb-pot style. Three players—A, B, and C—are involved in messy hand-killing spots in two different hands.

Hand 1: Player A bets pot on an obvious strong high hand (still has all his cards) on the flop. There is a 2 on the kill board at this point. He gets called in a few places. On the turn, he bets 30 into a pot of 40–50. Player B calls all-in for less, 11. Player A then removes a 2 from his hand and throws it on the flop kill board.

Player C has not yet acted, and there is at least one other player behind Player C who also has not acted. Player A's hand has to be dead, but how do you rule on the betting action?

Hand A is dead, and all of his chips are committed to the pot. Since he has Player B covered, if everyone else folds he gets the difference back. If not, then the chips he bet are winnable by whoever calls/raises the 30.

Hand 2: Player B gets heads-up with Player C. River on the kill board is a T. I don't recall the exact sequence of action, but I know no one is all-in (both still have chips at showdown), so both players took their actions after the last board cards were dealt out. It may have gone bet-call or check-check. Player B turns up his hand at showdown and has quads, but also has a T he didn't discard. Player C has a solid low but no high.

Player B wandered over to the game for the first time last week, claiming to have never played live poker before, to put him in context. He donated like 5 rebuys last week and is in for another 5. Seems shy but has taken to circus games quickly. This the first hand in two sessions where he has taken the betting lead.

Not that any of that changes the rules of the game, but damn it did not feel good to tell that kid his hand was dead.

No controversy here, player B hand is dead and player C scoooops.
 
I guess it depends on how serious the game and players are. It seems that in both instances, the card that should have been dead had no value on the hand, and killing the hand is a tough pill. It also matters, how the rules were explained, and if explained well enough to expressly point out that cards that have been declared dead, and are in the hand kill your hand.

ehh
 
frustrated-rules.gif
 
I guess it depends on how serious the game and players are. It seems that in both instances, the card that should have been dead had no value on the hand, and killing the hand is a tough pill. It also matters, how the rules were explained, and if explained well enough to expressly point out that cards that have been declared dead, and are in the hand kill your hand.

ehh
I teach people the game by dealing out a sample hand, during which I make it abundantly and redundantly clear that you must discard when the card comes on the discard board, and if you still have anything in your hand that should have been discarded, your hand is dead, so pay attention.

Player A is experienced and knows this. Player B is less experienced but has played a bunch of hands with us and seems to get it. Also, he was there, of course, when Player A nuked his hand, and was in fact a beneficiary of it (A would have taken the high pot otherwise), so there's no "I didn't realize." Player B was upset about killing his hand, of course, but he took it like a man.

I ruled exactly as folks have specified so far. Player A's hand is dead and all 30 chips are in the pot. Player C ultimately called that hand, taking down the dead 19 and putting 11 toward the main pot with Player B.
 
Kinda feels like that sometimes.

I know the rules are important and should be enforced uniformly, but it never feels good to tell someone his hand that he's been excitedly betting is dead.

More common hand-killing issue in this game is that people grab the first burn card and put it in their hand by mistake when we play bomb pots (read: 89% of pots). Folks are drinking and socializing, so it's kinda understandable.

Usually it just kills the one player's hand, but once in a while, another player decides to unilaterally announce "MISDEAL!" and this basically forces a misdeal as everyone starts throwing their into the middle, mixed face-up and face-down. Not a fan. Really wish people wouldn't do that.
 
I’ve only heard this variant called scarney with a kill or murder scarney, it’s my preference as well
 
I’ve only heard this variant called scarney with a kill or murder scarney, it’s my preference as well
It may well be called that in other circles.

We were playing vanilla Scarney, and a player named George didn't like that the board cards would remain live even if they came up on the kill board.

So we switched it up and called his variant Georgie, and it stuck.
 
My Lebowski reference was just an add on of the previous... I'm with Walter on this one, people need to give a shit about the rules.
 
I tried to introduce Scarney to my crew and everyone HATED it and refused to play it after two deals.

What do you guys like so much about this game?
 
I tried to introduce Scarney to my crew and everyone HATED it and refused to play it after two deals.

What do you guys like so much about this game?
Tons of information given, lots of cards in hands, big swings in hand strength. Lots more cards visible than Hold 'Em, my players like the strategy behind that.
 
Tons of information given, lots of cards in hands, big swings in hand strength. Lots more cards visible than Hold 'Em, my players like the strategy behind that.
Don't forget the carnage. My group loves all of the points you listed plus the carnage. It's an exciting game where the action can change quickly.
 
I find that my players like Scarney/Georgie a lot because it's new and gives them a lot to think about, and it gives them a lot of potential to hit interesting hands.

Also, folks often back into the low half with a weak low, and I feel like it makes people think it's easy to win by chance.
 
One of the aspects I really like is the kill ( bring down cards to the discards) destroys straights. Which makes swooping more difficult
 
I find that my players like Scarney/Georgie a lot because it's new and gives them a lot to think about, and it gives them a lot of potential to hit interesting hands.

Also, folks often back into the low half with a weak low, and I feel like it makes people think it's easy to win by chance.
My guys will play all the Dramaha variants, Scrotum8, SOHE, etc. with no hesitation, and Holdem is banned. So they're into the crazy games. But the fact that a player can put in a bunch of bets (we play FL) in on early streets only to have their hand completely gutted by randomness was a bridge too far. When I say 'everyone' hated it I mean literally no one wanted to try it again.
 
When introducing Scarney to new players always emphasize that a failure to discard fouls your hand.

And then when revealing the bottom board, the dealer should always read out the cards. I actually prefer if only the discards are read out.

And to avoid carnage, perhaps play the round as bomb pots, reducing the overbetting pre.
 
When introducing Scarney to new players always emphasize that a failure to discard fouls your hand.

And then when revealing the bottom board, the dealer should always read out the cards. I actually prefer if only the discards are read out.

And to avoid carnage, perhaps play the round as bomb pots, reducing the overbetting pre.
We actually do all three of these things, including reading out only the discards.

For the most part it plays out well.

But sometimes people get distracted/drunk/excited about a big high hand and forget.

I have definitely cost myself a significant pot this way.
 
But the fact that a player can put in a bunch of bets (we play FL) in on early streets only to have their hand completely gutted by randomness was a bridge too far.
This is 100% perception. Hands are routinely gutted by randomness in all forms of poker, including beginners' games like Hold'em.

It's part of the game that you may start off way ahead and end up way behind, or dead, at the drop of one card.

As I've heard many times, "That's why it's called gambling."
 
I’ve only heard this variant called scarney with a kill or murder scarney, it’s my preference as well

We call this variant Brutal Scarney. We also play a 5 card version if too many players for 6, 5 cards in hand and 3-1-1 run out.


With respect to the 2nd hand mentioned if the player was really new to it I might leave it up the winner as to whether he splits the pot or not ... "John your hand really should be called dead but I'll leave it to Bob whether he's feeling generous or not. Next time though....". The discard being the final street makes a difference there.

There are times when rules can be bent for the good of the game and as long as everyone agrees.

We have a player who initially hated Scarney for this reason - he can be a bit forgetful and said he found the game stressful fearing he might forget and therefore not enjoyable. He's come round to it now but sat out the game for quite a while.
 
This is 100% perception. Hands are routinely gutted by randomness in all forms of poker, including beginners' games like Hold'em.

It's part of the game that you may start off way ahead and end up way behind, or dead, at the drop of one card.

As I've heard many times, "That's why it's called gambling."
True. But there's a difference between experiencing your nut low/two-pair/etc. getting counterfeited by an unfortunately turn or river card and having your handed gutted because were cards literally removed from your hand.

I'd play it again personally given the opportunity - but I can see where a game that literally removed cards from the deck at random would be off-putting.
 
This game is shit. I HATE the kill version. One knucklehead in my game calls kill and replace. Screw that even more.

Question for those who play this - can a player with the high without a 5 card hand?
 
Question for those who play this - can a player with the high without a 5 card hand?
If you mean the player is left with less than 5 total cards between board and hand, then yes. I think so, anyway. I could see an argument otherwise.

How about we make a new version where you must have 5 total cards to qualify for high? If not, you can only play for low.

We can name it Craigie.
 
True. But there's a difference between experiencing your nut low/two-pair/etc. getting counterfeited by an unfortunately turn or river card and having your handed gutted because were cards literally removed from your hand.

I'd play it again personally given the opportunity - but I can see where a game that literally removed cards from the deck at random would be off-putting.
It doesn't really strike me that way, but I guess I can understand the distinction.
 
If you mean the player is left with less than 5 total cards between board and hand, then yes. I think so, anyway. I could see an argument otherwise.

How about we make a new version where you must have 5 total cards to qualify for high? If not, you can only play for low.

We can name it Craigie.
We launched into a 20 minute debate on how you can't win a high hand with less than 5 cards. I don't know what side I'm on, but that's moot - because I hate the kill. I'm thinking of banning it.
 

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.

Back
Top Bottom