Cash Game Scarney Variant Dead Hand Messes (1 Viewer)

[Jimulacrum]

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.

It does introduce that potential issue, yeah.

I still like the kill, though. Adds so much more variety to the way hands play out, and more nuance to the high hands especially.

 

[TheOffalo]

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 is my main fear in introducing Scarney and Derailment to my smaller group. They like a lot some of the games I've introduced, and they are obviously familiar with being counterfeited or bad beats by the river, but the removal of cards in hands as in Scarney or whole boards as in Derailment may be too much loss of control and too arbitrary/gambly for them. How do you strategize for random removals?

(Personally I like Scarney and Derailment, the former more than the latter, FWIW.)

I think I may introduce the game I created, Burning Buckshot, that kills random cards on the board based on the burn cards, which is still random but less brutal as it only kills a limited number of cards on the board and none in your hand.

 

[CraigT78]

Derailment is a shit game as well.

I said it.

Fight me.

 

[bergs]

Derailment is a shit game as well.

I said it.

Fight me.

3 boards, more action.

I win.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Derailment is a shit game as well.

I said it.

Fight me.

I agree about Derailment. I clearly don't object to a randomized card-killing feature, but slashing 1/3 or even 2/3 of the board at the very end is a little much.

 

[Jimulacrum]

How do you strategize for random removals?

By smashing quads at literally every opportunity.

 

[KHarp1]

If you're talking about using these games as full circuits of play, then, that may be too much. Using one of those games as a once a circuit hand is perhaps a bit more palatable.

 

[Jimulacrum]

If you're talking about using these games as full circuits of play, then, that may be too much. Using one of those games as a once a circuit hand is perhaps a bit more palatable.

We go whole nights where we play nothing but this, Double Board Omaha, 3-card Double Board Hold'em, and Keithington (5-card double-board game; top board is Omaha rules, bottom is Hold'em rules).

It's fantastic.

 

[ekricket]

I agree about Derailment. I clearly don't object to a randomized card-killing feature, but slashing 1/3 or even 2/3 of the board at the very end is a little much.

It’s just five card draw, without the draw, and without 5 cards in your hand, and without a full deck. Otherwise it’s exactly the same.

 

[Jimulacrum]

It’s just five card draw, without the draw, and without 5 cards in your hand, and without a full deck. Otherwise it’s exactly the same.

How is it without a full deck?

 

[ssanel54]

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.

Does the $30 still count as a legal bet for all subsequent action?

Curious how you rule if player A induces multiple folds before revealing his mistake at showdown?

 

[Jimulacrum]

Does the $30 still count as a legal bet for all subsequent action?

Curious how you rule if player A induces multiple folds before revealing his mistake at showdown?

Yes, it does.

Technically, he's entitled to try to play his hand all the way to the end, if he wants to. If he thinks he can bluff his way out of the dead hand, he can certainly try.

But if he gets to showdown with it, it's still dead, so it's usually foolish to continue.

It is weird that he noticed in the middle of the betting round and decided to try to throw away the 2 after making the bet. Better play would be to let the $30 bet play out and then dump it on the next round, or something. Then he at least has a chance that everyone folds to the $30 and he gets the excess $19 back.

 

[ssanel54]

Yes, it does.

Technically, he's entitled to try to play his hand all the way to the end, if he wants to. If he thinks he can bluff his way out of the dead hand, he can certainly try.

But if he gets to showdown with it, it's still dead, so it's usually foolish to continue.

It is weird that he noticed in the middle of the betting round and decided to try to throw away the 2 after making the bet. Better play would be to let the $30 bet play out and then dump it on the next round, or something. Then he at least has a chance that everyone folds to the $30 and he gets the excess $19 back.

Yeah, I think you’d have a pretty high success rate angling until the bitter end. In hand 2, if the guy had just announced quads as an uncontested high, I wonder how many times his 10 would go unnoticed.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Yeah, I think you’d have a pretty high success rate angling until the bitter end. In hand 2, if the guy had just announced quads as an uncontested high, I wonder how many times his 10 would go unnoticed.

Someone noticed the 10 right away. Thankfully, my players keep a sharp watch at showdown, in the aggregate anyway. I would count DQing a fouled Scarney hand right alongside identifying the winner as a group responsibility, once the hands are tabled.

Not sure I'd quite call bluffing with a fouled hand "angling," any more than bluffing on the end with a hand that doesn't play (e.g., 22 on a KKQQ3 board) would be angling. But I can appreciate that perspective. It's certainly unorthodox.

It's like opening with less than a pair of jacks in Jacks or Better. I have a friend who likes to call that sometimes, and I've asked him more than once if it's a valid play to bluff with a non-qualifying hand. Like suppose someone opens with nothing and makes a pair of jacks on the draw, or bluffs both rounds and takes it down uncontested. How should the table handle that if it were found out? He never has a real answer for me, aside from "You're not supposed to do that."

As much as I love playing Scarney-family games, stuff like this gives me pause. It's messy and it can make people upset.

 

[ssanel54]

Someone noticed the 10 right away. Thankfully, my players keep a sharp watch at showdown, in the aggregate anyway. I would count DQing a fouled Scarney hand right alongside identifying the winner as a group responsibility, once the hands are tabled.

Not sure I'd quite call bluffing with a fouled hand "angling," any more than bluffing on the end with a hand that doesn't play (e.g., 22 on a KKQQ3 board) would be angling. But I can appreciate that perspective. It's certainly unorthodox.

It's like opening with less than a pair of jacks in Jacks or Better. I have a friend who likes to call that sometimes, and I've asked him more than once if it's a valid play to bluff with a non-qualifying hand. Like suppose someone opens with nothing and makes a pair of jacks on the draw, or bluffs both rounds and takes it down uncontested. How should the table handle that if it were found out? He never has a real answer for me, aside from "You're not supposed to do that."

As much as I love playing Scarney-family games, stuff like this gives me pause. It's messy and it can make people upset.

having cards that don’t play is different than representing a six card hand, when you should only have 2 live cards is different in my mind.

If it’s intentional, I think it’s closer to announcing you have the nuts, when you don’t, and waiting for your opponent to muck their cards

 

[Jimulacrum]

having cards that don’t play is different than representing a six card hand, when you should only have 2 live cards is different in my mind.

If it’s intentional, I think it’s closer to announcing you have the nuts, when you don’t, and waiting for your opponent to muck their cards

I agree it's different.

I don't think it's quite on the level of what you're saying, though. Getting all the way to the end and playing a nasty trick to get your opponent to kill his own hand is a clear, unsportsmanlike angle intended to rob someone of his rightful share of a pot (and I believe TDA penalizes this by awarding the pot to the disenfranchised player).

Holding all your cards in Scarney is more like an extreme bluff, betting with a hand that you know will be killed if you have to table it. Very much like the comparison I made to Jacks or Better. It's really its own unique bit of weirdness, and the player would have to admit he did it on purpose, or it's indistinguishable from an honest mistake.

I don't think we can forbid a player winning a pot by bluffing with a fouled hand. After all, if the bluff succeeds, the hand is never seen. If it fails, the player can just muck on the end. It doesn't strike me as the nicest play in the world, but neither is a check-raise.

 

[KHarp1]

I like to think of the check-raise as winning the toss and deferring to receive the kick in the second half...a savvy play.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I like to think of the check-raise as winning the toss and deferring to receive the kick in the second half...a savvy play.

Savvy, sure, but not the nicest play. It's like saying, "I know if I leave the door open, you'll walk through it in a way I can take advantage of."

 

[KHarp1]

I don't see the problem with that, in poker. I'm basically choosing not to use my option to bet, at that moment, deferring to the next player. If I set a trap and they walk into that trap, then that's good play. It's not a play you use often, but, still a valuable tool in the tool belt. A way to extract the most profit at times.

 

[RocAFella1]

interesting situation from the weekend. 6 card 6 card board Scarney is called as dealer’s choice. However there are 7 players. It was late in the night and no one was paying attention.

Action goes multi way to the flop where there is more betting. After some raises action is now heads up going to the turns. Dealer deals both remaining cards but realizes 6 card board is not possible. There is some discussion to play 5 card board instead or to nullify the hand and return bets. What would you do?

 

[SavageLizard]

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.

Sometimes games are cool just because it's fun! We mix in one every once in awhile that has almost zero skill, but the carnage/fun factor keeps it getting called now and then.

 

[Jimulacrum]

interesting situation from the weekend. 6 card 6 card board Scarney is called as dealer’s choice. However there are 7 players. It was late in the night and no one was paying attention.

Action goes multi way to the flop where there is more betting. After some raises action is now heads up going to the turns. Dealer deals both remaining cards but realizes 6 card board is not possible. There is some discussion to play 5 card board instead or to nullify the hand and return bets. What would you do?

Nullify the hand and return the bets.

Not a solution I'd want to employ when it can be avoided, but the alternative is basically switching the game mid-hand, after people have already made multiple decisions, which I'd consider a greater evil than declaring the whole hand fouled.

 

[RadicusScout]

The more I read this thread the more I'm thinking of introducing Scarney to my group (it looks too crazy not to play) but I have some n00b questions:

1) How are the boards dealt? Do they alternate? Does the top board play out first and then the bottom board?
2) If a 2 is revealed in the bottom board and I have a pair of 2s in my hand, do they all get discarded or just one of them?

 

[Jimulacrum]

The more I read this thread the more I'm thinking of introducing Scarney to my group (it looks too crazy not to play) but I have some n00b questions:

1) How are the boards dealt? Do they alternate? Does the top board play out first and then the bottom board?
2) If a 2 is revealed in the bottom board and I have a pair of 2s in my hand, do they all get discarded or just one of them?

1. Boards are dealt simultaneously, exactly like Double Board Omaha or any other normal double-board game. Live and dead flop together, live and dead turn together, live and dead river together.
2. If a 2 lands on the dead board, all 2s are dead and must be discarded that round. Any hand with a 2 still in it after that round is a dead hand. (In the "Brutal"/"Georgie" version of the game, any 2s on the live board are killed as well, and should be physically moved to the dead board. Even if someone forgets to move a 2 from the live board, it still does not play at showdown.)

 

[RadicusScout]

1. Boards are dealt simultaneously, exactly like Double Board Omaha or any other normal double-board game. Live and dead flop together, live and dead turn together, live and dead river together.
2. If a 2 lands on the dead board, all 2s are dead and must be discarded that round. Any hand with a 2 still in it after that round is a dead hand. (In the "Brutal"/"Georgie" version of the game, any 2s on the live board are killed as well, and should be physically moved to the dead board. Even if someone forgets to move a 2 from the live board, it still does not play at showdown.)

This is helpful. Thanks for the clarification of #2. In my head I assumed the top board would also be impacted by the dead board but now I'm understanding that is a variant of the original game. Nice.

 

[SavageLizard]

We normally have eight players, so 40 cards to players + burn card + 6 cards for the flop + burn card + 2 for the river + burn card + 2 for the river = 53 cards. I guess we'd just skip the last burn card, or does anyone do something different in their game?

 

[detroitdad]

We normally have eight players, so 40 cards to players + burn card + 6 cards for the flop + burn card + 2 for the river + burn card + 2 for the river = 53 cards. I guess we'd just skip the last burn card, or does anyone do something different in their game?

No burns