You get 4 cards and 2 ways to win the pot every hand. How can you miss? You were prolly just running really bad. Ask for a setup and order some more drinks imo.

Should try bluffing more; heard it's a great strat in split pot fixed limit games.

Demand a 5th card be added to the game. Trust me, you're drunk and down 50BB, the table will accommodate. Once you're playing BigO, everything gets better. 9 handed? No problem. No burn on the turn.

If you run out of cards in a home game, either because you're playing a 5 card game or because you're too lazy to shuffle or because someone is cheating and hiding cards in his lap, an appropriate response is to use the 8-deck shoe that you've been using to practice blackjack with and make up special rules for five of a kind and ace-ace-high flushes and throw your cheating friend in a running shower clothed.

Totally sober, unfortunately hero doesn't drink.

Maybe that would make it a little bit more bearable though....

The mix game is an 8-max table.

Perfect for 5 card Omaha, then. Think about how few hands are unplayable for a LHE "specialist" with that many cards. Table vpip of 80%? Could happen. "But I had pocket jacks and 3 low cards". Seriously, have a quads blocker to go with your top full house.

you guys seem overly nitty about rules and etiquette. here are two examples: (1) rec player is stuck 10k in game and we are in a big pot where I river nut flush, he is last to act (other players folded river) and says really Jon? I say yea i got it save your money, he folds and I show the nut flush. If you think there is something wrong with this then you are an idiot

(2) you are multiway on the turn vs the same player with A hi flush draw. he bets and you raise the turn, river the nut flush and check it down because you don't bet heads up. This is clearly wrong and clearly different that the first spot.

But when 2 people play their hands completely normal and want to do whatever on the river when it has no effect on me I don't care. I would only care if it would influence their decions on previous streets if they know they are getting free cards


I mean I've played in 3 handed games before with 2 friends that didn't bet when heads up. It was the best thing ever because hands were even faster

I'm driving up tomorrow (in a rented car, btw). I'll get a tow rope and you can follow me up. We'll stop at the bottom of every hill and I'll tow you up it.

Or you can pay $141 to rent a car for a week like I did.

If that means you're coming to Talking Stick I'll pm you my board name and you can say hi if you want to. I'll be there daytime tomorrow.

As with the showing your hand thread, the whole key here is the exception.

The exception encompasses more situations than the rule so it's more like the exception is the rule. Once two people have agreed to check it down once, they know for the future they will likely get to check it down. So what you're asking for is for two people to know they get to check it down but don't act on it. That's a pretty tall order.

In Howard's case, I'm relatively indifferent about the checking flop and turn. Although I wouldn't, I understand if people do. It's like you have "potential for collusion" on one side and the possible utility on the other side, and possible utility outweighs the potential for collusion.

But checking the river with the nuts is different enough that there are actual written rules about it in tournaments (I think you have to be in position, but the premise is similar - the potential for collusion outweighs any possible utility that the move may or may not have).

The jackpot aspect complicates things because you may actually want to check the nuts because you are afraid the other guy might fold a jackpot winning hand. If I am playing in a new place where I don't know the jackpot rules or just don't think about it because I usually don't play with a jackpot, I have pocket Tens and the board runs out AAAQJ, I am probably going to fold. Of course if I am aware of the jackpot, and call, to find the other guy has KQ, I'm probably going to be pissed about it. Just another reason I think jackpots are bad for poker.

I consider what I did a courtesy bec the other player is under great pressure to call only bec of the jackpot which I know can't be hit. It just feels dirty to make him pay off under that circumstance. If it were a tourney or a non jackpot game it's entirely different.

Does everyone at your table understand and agree on the unspoken rules?

That is, are you sure they are under great pressure to call and not unaware of the jackpot? Will everyone at the table understand the kicker rule and realize that you knew the jackpot couldn't be hit? If anyone were playing in a tournament with you, would they understand the difference?

I can't remember the exact action, but it was 100 percent obvious we had hit the jackpot and I was basically staring at him saying "we got this, right?"

So yeah, it would be rather silly for him to bet. And I would have x/raised him (as I think is required) if he did.

I think Darvin Moon got sat out a round at the WSOP Main Event a few years ago (and it might have even been at the final table) for checking the nuts behind on the river.

BTW, jackpots are great for poker, and I don't think that's even an arguable point.

All of the regs would understand why I checked turn and river. Not all of them would do it, though.

No, I'm going to Vegas.

When it gets nerve-wracking is when there's only the pre-flop money in the pot and the min pot size to qualify is $10.

I have never seen a reasonable argument that they are good for poker, and have several good reasons they're bad for poker. I remember even being told they were bad for poker by the manager of the Borgata poker room, as he was implementing one. He felt they were bad for poker but had no other choice because all his competition was getting one.

Wouldn't "people prefer to play at places with jackpots" be a reasonable argument that they are good for poker?

1. Jackpots attract fish, and encourage fish who are already attracted to play longer and risk more money.

2. Jackpots encourage fish to play more hands (such as calling a hand such as A9 off in a three bet pot) trying to hit the thing.

3. Jackpots supply fish with bankrolls when they hit full shares and table shares, which they then put back into the game.

4. Jackpots supply an endless amount of harmless table talk for good players and fish alike.

Good for the game. The guy at the Borgata should be asking himself why his competitors like them so much.

Jackpots take a lot of money from a lot of people and give it to one person.

Some places also take administrative 'fees', aka more rake.

At CAZ in the past, jackpot drops actually helped them rake more from the daily tourneys. 40+25 or whatever but $1000 is added per table. Basically making it a 50+15, or a different way of taking jackpot money and putting it directly into the casinos pocket.

Not if they are not really attracting new customers. When jackpots came to AC, all they did was move traffic around. The 2/4 LHE and 1/2 NL players migrated each week to whoever had the highest jackpots. But there were no new players because of the jackpots. And in the long run, the player base decreased. There were other factors of course, but I think part of the reason was the jackpot drop making people lose faster.