room dependent
this is covered in the rules and varies room to room
most rooms have the both hole cards must play and a common card voids your hand

For bbjp, hi hands, etc. normally yes your cards play. But it is really room rules. The most common rule I have seen is you can play the cards or kicker in your hand as long as the board cards don't make a higher hand.

I will say that many room, esp ac s full rooms, require quads use a pocket pair. If the bbjp has that rule then the AK would not qualify.

Even in your ace hi straight example, the j10 in my hand can play. It makes the same straight so it does not matter. But that doesn't mean I am not using my hole cards. For the poker and pot it doesn't matter but for jp or hh or promos or other non poker stuff all depends on room rules.

The part I think is horrible is that a card in someone's hand doesn't play for a BBJ or a HH when it exactly matches a card on the board. I thought that was the exact crux of the thread so I didn't feel the need to be more detailed than that.

The point was you could have been talking about the rule that it does count or the rule that it doesn't count.

And that is exactly why the few places where a tie don't play rule is in effect have a bad rule. Other than two pair or tens full ANY hand you could make was a higher hand and would have won.

Psand this is an example of why tie don't play is a bad rule. I agree the house can have whatever rules they want as long as the regulating body agrees. But that doesn't mean the rules are not bad.

I don't see what makes this rule bad. So in this instance he didn't win the high hand. That is not inherently bad. He just as easily could have been the player with Queens full who won.

to say this is a bad rule because in this instance a player who would have won it with a different rule doesn;t win makes no sense.

Its much like if I lose with AAAKK I mifght say a bad beat jackpot that requires Quads beat is a bad rule and the rule should be AAAKK beat.

I'm not arguing its a good rule ... I'm arguing its a neutral rule neither inherently good or bad. (it may be good or bad in relation to the goals of jackpot .... for example If the house wants to make sure they are giving away each high hand and there is a minimum qualifying hand, the you might say a rule making it harder to qualify is bad for the purpose of making sure someone qualifies. On the other hand if the house would prefer to have nobody qualify and the money roll over so there is a bigger high hand next time then the rule making qualification harder would be good for that purpose. this is more a consideration of a BBJ .... if the houses goal is to make frequent jackpot payouts rules that make qualification easier are good from the houses perspective, if the house wishes to build a large progressive jackpot then rules making qualification harder would be good from the houses perspective. --- each playyer may have their own preference and so the rule would seem good or bad to them based on there own preference but not on any inherent quality of the rule)

I think it's a bad rule because you can "improve" your hand from a winner to a loser. Just seems to go against the spirit of trying to make a good hand. Also, especially in a NL game, it could lead to weird things like someone going all in with the nuts, hoping not to be called.

It is a bad rule because the higher hand did not win the high hand promo. If queens full loses to quad kings, queens full can't say a lower hand won. Chill flops a hand that beats the queens full and then gets stronger but now isn't a hand higher than queens full.

The promo was high hand but because of a rule the higher hand did not win. I think any high hand rule that lets a lower hand win is a bad rule. That is very different than a casino deciding that quad x beat is the min for a bad beat. It is more like a rule that sf over sf with all four cards playing isn't a bad beat because the losing hand by rule must be quads. Like this that would be a bad rule.

Well then on that basis "must use both your hole cards" would be a bad rule in and of itself. As would a minimum pot size.

Minimum pot size is a bad rule, unless it is the exact size at which they take out the money that funds the promo; in that case it makes sense. I agree that the "must use both hole cards" is a silly rule for high hand promos.

At the room I play at most often there is no BBJ, but the room rule is that your hole card plays only for the purpose of the high hand (if applicable), but not for awarding the pot if your hole card doesn't improve the 5 cards on the board (and you must use at least one hole card for the high hand*).

i.e. if the board ran out: K K K K A

Everyone with a live hand at showdown chops the pot, but only anyone with a live hand at showdown holding an ace would qualify for the high hand.

* i.e. if a straight flush shows on the board: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and you aren't holding the 10 or 10, J of the suit, the pot is chopped and no one qualifies for the high hand.

I believe it is for a hi hand promo. But not as bad as tie don't play.

Can you think of reasons must use two cards would be a good rule? I can.

You're the one who brought up the possibility of it being a bad rule. Just stirring the pot?

I didn't bring up the possibility of it being a bad rule. I was saying the reasoning that was offered for why ties don't play is a bad rule would make the general rule that both cards must play a bad rule. I don't agree with that reasoning.

OK, so I guess you like those rules? Most here are saying they don't.

The hand in your example qualifies as a jackpot-eligible hand at Commerce.

I do like both hole cards must play. I do not like ties do not play. But I feel that neither is inherently good or bad.

I like both hole cards must play because it reduces the possibilities of multiple players with the same hand. That may not matter to some people but I just have a personal preference to avoid splitting the prize .... again its just personal preference.

I do not like the tied cads do not play because it doesn't feel natural to me to make a judgment about which of two cards of a value counts.

But even more I hate bad logic... so if someone says that they don't like the ties don't count rule because the best poker hand by poker rules should win ..... then I expect consistency and no requirement for hole cards to play because poker rules (at least for holdem) don;t require you play any hole cards.