When you say "Ceegee... wins high", are you saying that his undeclared high hand was better than Andy's?

If so, it doesn't matter- Ceegee doesn't have a high hand to play, only the low hand that he declared.

However, under Andy's "pig knockout" rule, Ceegee still gets the whole pot (I think, now that I've read his other post):

Rusty is knocked out by Andy
Andy is knocked out by Ceegee
No one is left to claim the high half of the pot, so the only active hand scoops the pot.

This is why I don't like the pig rule Andy plays under. Ceegee would not have had any chance at the full pot- he took no declaration risks to get it, like Andy did- yet is rewarded because Andy took a chance.
Rusty did nothing wrong (other than being second best declared high hand), yet loses the high portion of the pot to someone who didn't have any claim on the high half.

That's why I prefer the "invisible pig" rule- the hand is concluded as if the pig was never in the hand.

The remaining declarers (high and low) split the pot as matched by their declarations. In this case, Randy is "unjustly" rewarded as the second-best high... but Andy could have declared low-only and Ceegee could have declared high instead of low, so.....

So, the pigs get away with not being penalized, because they trapped you with a one-way third-best high hand?

That makes no sense to me... and I've never seen that escape clause used in a pig rule game. If you were knocked out, the pigs still couldn't win under the "must win outright" rule... and the pot would sit there for the next hand, which everyone could play in.

Andy, was your rule in place just "because"? Or is there a logic process behind the decision to use the pig knockout version and yet give the pigs an out for remaining in the hand?

If ceegee declares low, his high hand is irrelevant. I assume that you mean that ceegee has the best low hand, in which case, yes, he scoops.

Larry, you're getting awfully worked up about a game that I last played in about eight years ago. I'm not necessarily advocating the rules--I'm just saying what we did. Again, what is important is not necessarily what the rules are, but that everyone understand them so that there aren't hurt feelings or gun play when there is a blown pig declaration.

The overriding consideration that you can't "back in" was their deal, and I don't think it's a bad rule. This was a game that had been going for a few years when I started playing with them occasionally in 1995 and more regularly in 1996. I just kinda went along with what they did. There was a game that I couldn't make for some reason where Ron and Bill both declared both ways. Ron had an Eight-high flush and Bill had an Eight-high straight. Ron swept, but it did get us talking about what to do in cases where two guys both declared both, which was pretty damned rare. I made the case for dividing the pot as if cards spoke, and that's what we ultimately settled on. It never came up.

I'd maintain that Rusty doesn't have any claim to the high half, either.

The bet after the declare is absolutely critical. Pot limit. Will pay for your next car in the right company.

So from a few of your recent posts it sounds like you play a lot of 1car/2car?

AFAIK that's the limit where they finally respect your raises.

The core of the group that I played with 1995-2000 was made up of history graduate students. I think the biggest win anyone ever had was just under $100. I won't drive anything that costs less than $200.

Of course the beauty of the pot-size bet on the end , is the check-raise pot bet ... otherwise what's the point !

No, but you can pay for a car one sandwich at a time. I play a lot of 1sandwich/2sandwich.

Wait, what? I blow whatever winnings I have immediately after a session. I thought that was how it was done. I'm still trying to work my way up to 1 hooker/2 hooker

That's what I've always done. Because of this it's pretty much guaranteed that I'll never be a loser lifetime.

Depends on what you call sweet. In a 25¢-ante no-limit bet-declare-bet game
played under Larry's rules, I watched a steel wheel declare both ways, build a $1200 pot and go down in flames as another player had a wheel and two-pairs-for-high backed into a scooper.

In the 90s, I felt sure that internet poker would revive the declare game. Two of the biggest problems would be solved: the slowness of the game, and the angling and lying about the declare. I think the collusion factor may have killed it, but I thought at least *one* of the smaller or underground sites would have given it a try.

E-freaking-gads.

My reading of "Larry's rules" is that the other wheel and two pair would split. This seems like a just reward for a guy sticking it out with two pair in a two-way game with heavy action....I actually opined back when that the pig shouldn't get screwed in the case of ties, so I'd advocate a three-quarter/one-quarter split. I also think that giving the whole pot to the other wheel makes more sense than Larry's way. Giving the whole thing to two pair is pretty awful, I think, but it does have a sadistic kind of appeal.

Again, the important thing is that the ground rules are laid out ahead of time, unless you enjoy knife fights.

The wheel had declared hog also. One of the most important things to understand in a declare game is whether a loss kills a hogger, or whether a loss *or* a tie kills a hogger. In this game it was explicit that a hogger had to win both ways, and a tie killed it completely.

edit: BTW, the 2 pair hand made a reasonable call. Both low hands had low boards, but the wheels and the flush used 3 down cards. 2 Pair thought he had them whipsawed. He didn't know how right he was.

I am surprised that two interesting historical footnotes have not been noted in this thread. It is incumbent upon me to reveal all:

First, in Sklansky On Poker, Sklansky wrote that Seven Stud High-Low Declare was the most skillful game of poker there is because the declare meant you could either win the whole pot or half the pot through skillful declaring.

Secondly, in Supersystem, it was written that Sklansky was working on a Seven Stud High-Low book. This book never made the light of day. This is probably poker's greatest "lost" work akin to the Beach Boys' Smile album (though the latter did get a long delayed release).

Well, it's a good thing we have you around, Al.

Just to be absolutely clear, this was to be a Seven Stud High-Low With A Declare book. Two Plus Two, did of course, publish Ray Zee's book on Stud8/Omaha8.

Is Ray Zee´s book good? This far i have read super sys2 chapter about stud8 and it helped me much.

It depends on where you play. If you play in the games I play in, then you mustn't read Ray Zee at all, but instead devour everything John Patrick has ever written about stud8. The stud8 chapter in Phil Hellmuth's Play Poker Like the Pros is also good for players in my games.

Ray Zee's book has made me more money than all other poker books combined, and I've read something like 140 of them. Your mileage will vary.

This thread died a while ago. I still want to play H/L No qualifier! I got the gist of people's views - declaration is a tricky business, sites probably won't want to spread it. But with enough support, somewhere like Pokerstars would surely take it on. From what I gather, although there are a lot of issues with the game according to what has already been posted, the consensus is still that nobody here would object at all to having the game online. If anything, they would welcome it. Correct?

Now, who's with me? Get emailing!

I'm with you. I love no qualifer. But I don't think they will spread any declare stuff. It would have to be "cards speak".

Thanks for reviving the corpse then! I totally forgot about this thread.

Still gold. It's almost as if you know him.

I was asked to move this from the low-content thread to this thread, and naturally I screwed up. Original post by tarmangani:

Reply by me:

Reply by tarmangani:

Reply by Phat Mack: