But why does it necessarily mean what you are insisting it means? The rules don’t say anything about “holding until the river”. The rules don’t mention the flop or the river at all. They just say “flop only”, without any mention of any other streets.

I’m not going to take it up with anyone because I have no connection with anyone involved here or any interest in the outcome. But I do think the rules are poorly written and could be interpreted either way. And there are reasons to believe the intepretation supporting that the BBJP should be awarded in this case is slightly stronger.

In legal theory, there is a principle of statutory construction that no clause in a statute should be intrepreted in a way as to make it superfluous or redundant if an alternate interpretation would give the same clause independent force.

(This can be found in rule 22 of the US Supreme Court’s own rules of statutory construction.)

So how should the term “flop only” be constructed in the these rules?

If “flop only” in rule 1 simply means that the straight flush must be flopped for the hand to qualify, then the the term is entirely redundant of rule 3 which also states the “hands must be flopped”.

However, if “flop only” is intepreted to mean the entire qualifier for the BBJP is only evaluated on the flop, regardless of what happens on the turn and river, then the clause is not redundant of rule 3.

So in some sense this latter intepretation is more reasonable.
You could claim that this latter interpretation makes rule 3 redundant of rule 1, though in this case rule 3 is really a specifier of rule 1, which is more common in statutory language. Though I’d admit that neither interpretation is obvious and the rule really is ambiguous.

(And FWIW I am a law professor and teach this stuff as part of my job.)

The rules do say the hand must be completed and you must use you best hand. Like a said you can’t pick and chose which rule you have the meet all of them. There are at least 3 rules in play. Must flop THE (not a) sf. Must play to river. Must us best hand.

When all three are applied the intent is obvious. Though could be better worded

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

No one here is saying 100% the rules say it should be paid.
No one here should be saying 100% the rules say it shouldn't be paid.

What we are saying is that the rules are very badly written and allow for a good argument either way.

Enough that when it's a $100k swing for the players it should really be discussed further than Doug posting on social media mocking the players with a "haha" look how close you got.

If this happened at any other property i guarantee you we'd have already heard "what's up guys" with a 15min deep dive into it.

Fwiw I could probably be popped into the DP fan club, but I think he has got it wrong here.

"In omaha, both the winning hand and the losing hand must be flopped"

Winning hand was a royal flush.

Royal flush was rivered.

case closed

The working is awkward but if all rules are applied, it is still clear. WhyMaleModels put it succinctly. Gotta flop winning and losing hands. The winning hand was a Royal Flush. Said Royal Flush was not flopped; it was rivered.

You might not like DP making the 'decision' (doubt he personally did anyway, and there really was not decision to make, just follow rules) but since DP gets final say (short of player(s) filing a civil suit that I doubt TX courts would even take, what DP says really is what goes. DP is the regulating authority.

Then again, I did not see DP post a "mocking" anyway.

But keep pounding away because again, short of a law suit, the pounding doesn't matter and is no a logical reading of the rules anyway. (Though again, rules could be worded to be more clear.)

Bingo. There is no controversy here.

Can I get the last 10 minutes of my life back please.....

(Mod Edit): Re: Lodge in Round Rock.

There are literally no games anymore since Texas Card House Social opened……..i guess when you get too cocky……..ban players…….tell players you can go elsewhere if you don’t like the new rules in place………this is a direct result! They had it coming for sure……..nobody even wants to play there…….environment is toxic……..the only reason they got business anyways is because it was the only option in the Austin area………now it has been reduced to microstakes! 1/2 NL with a cap! Lmao……..keep players from playing big……..what a genius idea……..pay $11 an hour to sit in a 1/2NL game with hard cap? Furthermore disgusting restrooms…….inadequate dealers + floor persons……..and lastly implementing some rules nobody knew about to avoid payout of bad beat jackpot…….players getting robbed in the parking lot………etc etc etc……..doug polk texting players directly begging them to come back and play at the Dodge…….true story…….i actually saw the texts…….pathetic! But wait…….i believe the stream commentator said “the best thing Lodge ever did was put a cap on the games so clownasses like myself can afford to play”………haaahaaaa! Good job!

……….

Is this just a hater or is this accurate?

There is some truth to it. Both in Lodge San Antonio and Lodge Austin the 1/2 NLH games capped at $300. The bomb pots also have caps so you can only lose a limited amount of money in the bomb pot. A 1/3 NLH $1,000 cap runs at Lodge Austin. A 1/3 1k cap + match the stack runs sometimes in Lodge San Antonio. Higher stakes public games don't seem to regularly make. The 1/3 games are generally not very good.

TCH Social has been taking business in Austin since it opened up and running 2/5 seemingly daily.

SA Cardhouse has taken significant volume from Lodge San Antonio compared to when it was Rounders. Before Rounders almost always had more holdem tables running than SA. Now SA frequently has ~ 1 more holdem table running. SA Cardhouse also has the best games that play deeper. 1/2 where the straddle is on to 5 or 10 most of the time and 1/3 where the straddle is on up to 15, sometimes more. And stack depths frequently at 1k-2k+.

Before Rounders had a 1/2 game that was 75% match the stack, so the 1/2 games would get very big, but there would always be some smaller tables. There was something for everyone. Now all of the people who want to play bigger and all of the good games have gone to SA Cardhouse. That said, if you like 1/2 300 cap and capped bomb pots, Lodge is for you.

IDK about Doug texting people in Austin, but he did get a list of regulars who played at Rounders who stopped playing as much after it become Lodge San Antonio and he texted these people personally.

Doug's response has been that rec players who don't want to be forced to play super deep (IE, bum hunter sits next to them and matches after they run up a stack). That's a fair stance. There is a sizeable player pool for the 1/2 capped game. But it is what it is. The deeper, good games have moved.

And you may ask, why are we playing 1/2 with $10 straddles and 2k stacks in Texas? Why don't we just run 2/5? And I don't know the exact answer. 2/5 just isn't running regularly in some towns. Part of the answer is that since the 1/2 have a reputation for playing like a 5/10, the 2/5 and 5/5 games that have run had a reputation of running like a 10/25. And those games tend to attract a lot of professionals, which in turn makes people not want to play, which kills the game.

Part of what has happened when Lodge took over Rounders was the idea that they were going to change the structure so that there would be 1/2 300 cap for people that wanted to play that game, then there would be a 1/3, and a 2/5, etc for people that wanted to play bigger. Because that's how it is in Vegas, LA, etc. But there's a different poker culture in Texas. It just hasn't panned out the way the new owners envisioned. Instead we mainly just have bad capped 1/2 at Lodge and better games elsewhere.

Mlarks response is right on most of the points. I would debate a couple items (our volume at Lodge SA is now above levels before the takeover) and that the games at Lodge SA are bad. They are rec heavy, as pros do not want to play in the smaller capped game compared to the bigger game options. They are certainly smaller, which for some people may equate to bad. Depends on how you would want to value that.

I have been texting a good chunk of our regulars looking for feedback on how we can improve things at the club and getting their opinions. Lots of the players have been happy to give input, and I view this as a positive thing. A far cry from "begging them to come back", and if that is the case than by all means show the message I sent!

This is the same thing that we did in San Antonio, I care about the success of the clubs and want to hear what people have to say. These arent automated messages, I am sending them out personally.

As for the post about Lodge RR, we still have games running 24/7. "Literally no games" is a huge stretch compared to reality. That said, game volume has dropped and we are being proactive to hear what customers have to say and to improve.

Dont think there is a need to dive too deeply into most of the rest of that post, but wanted to weigh in briefly.

Whenever I hear a business owner 'wanting opinions' from others it makes me wonder why they aren't on site speaking with customers and employees and conducting hands on information gathering themselves. Undercover Boss is a great show!

We once had a CEO who was very involved in the business (an electric utility) and would visit crews in the field at all hours checking in and asking questions. The company was pulled out of bankruptcy and made profitable. He had to fire two VP's who wouldn't get on board which is very unusual in our sector of the business world.

He was the best at leading by example and his method was simple, spend time with people.

Houston player here with my two cents:

TCH Austin gave a ton of time away on their first day to entice players to check out the new venue. Will take some time for players to use that free time. The real proof in the pudding will be when players have to buy more time. Will they stay at TCH or revert back to the Lodge

Im a business owner and Im confident you'll figure it out. At the end of the day were more or less winging it, maybe you made some -ev decisions, maybe not. Im sure you'll find a way to get a solid system going where players are able to play stakes they're comfortable with and want to be playing.

Suggestion: Try out a live rathole table. Theyre the most popular games for US players imo in the US on acr and global, and the format seems primed for Texas donks. Ship and run it. Just make the time limit per day or something that a player has to return with the same size stack. Or allow for 1 reset or something. 10bb. Try it out at 5/10 $100stacks as ppl will unload clips at that amount. Or 10/20 $200.

Sounds like thats what they're doing....

I agree, the games at Lodge SA are actually better if we don't consider game size as part of the metric of what makes a game good. There are more rec players and less pros. A pro would beat those games for a very high number of bb. But it would be a smaller dollar win rate because the blind is smaller, there is a lack of straddling, and the games are capped. Which, I get it, your biggest concern isn't whether games are good for pros, and you have legitimate reasons for wanting to make the games more fun for recreational players.

It is great that the volume at Lodge SA is bigger than pre acquisition. I think it is great that you have tapped into a player pool that really wants to play 1/3 300 cap. You grew the overall market some by offering this. Also, the market is always going to have some organic growth. A quick Google search says the population in San Antonio increased 22,000 last year. Some of them are going to play poker, right? Another awesome thing is that you got 1/2/5 PLO going daily, which is something that never lasted long in the past.

Speaking specifically about NLH cash games: you have to pick and choose the things to prioritize. Maybe there isn't a perfect way where you can satisfy both the players that want to play bigger and the players who want to play capped games. I hope there is a decent compromise though. Right now I think there are a good 1-2 tables of NLH cash at SA Cardhouse daily that have moved over from Rounders and it includes both recreational players and regs that want to play bigger. I think that is 10-20% of the NLH volume at SA Cardhouse. People that used to prefer Rounders. On top of that there is the existing market of players that wants to play bigger, but had always preferred SA Cardhouse, but would be consider playing more at Lodge if it offered games they liked. That is another 10-20% of the volume that plays at SA Cardhouse which might play at Lodge SA but probably won't under current conditions. Lodge SA is growing, but there is more potential.

One thing I also want to talk about is the feeling left out as a winning reg. Let me preface this by saying that I am a professional poker player. At times I feel like I am painted as the enemy of recreational poker players. But there is a two way street between the solid winning regs and the recreational players who want to play bigger. Regs play because of the recreational players. But regs are also partly the market makers in poker.

Sometimes without the regs, there aren't enough players to ensure that the recs that want to play certain stakes or at deeper tables have tables to play at that don't break or go short handed. That's partly why home games and private games in cardrooms exist. If a recreational player wants to play 10/25 for example, they are going to have a hard time finding it in San Antonio without a relationship either a reg running or in the game. And if it isn't the reg bringing them into the game, there are likely regs that are integral to making sure the game starts early and lasts late.

Winning regs are a decent chunk of the market of cardroom members who play tons of hours. A lot of them are fun guys who are friendly with a lot of the recreational players. Take a guy like Chaz who is now a partner at Lodge SA. People go to the Cardhouse to play with him because he is fun to play and super nice. Despite that he is a really good winning poker player. Regs like that are influential on the poker community. Players gravitate towards them.

I am not trying to argue that being a winning poker player is a noble profession because it's not. We're symbiotes to the poker community just like cardhouses are. The best of us try not to be parasites. I get it, recreational players always come first. That said, when a cardhouse strives to meet the needs of both recreational players and regs, the poker community flourishes. All parties benefit. A strategy that works to meet the needs of both recs and regs can lead to better selection of different games and different stakes without having to go to home games or private games. That would bring more players to the cardhouse more often. Everyone wins from that. I don't know the exact strategy to accomplish this, my hope whatever strategy you take, it doesn't have to be an us vs them scenario.

Regs will always adapt to a structure that benefits fish because there is no reg without fish. Pokerstars is an example of trying to cater to regs and losing the fish. GG is an example of a structure where regs have adapted and fish still play

Twisting yourself up to paint extraction as a benefit is definitely sophistry. You are just taking money out of the card rooms pocket

One pillar of the community reg doesn't make up for hundreds of misregs

Idk, I need a few more '........'s to know for sure.

This is definitely a big issue I've noticed in the market. Oftentimes the majority of "feedback" the room operators receive is coming from the vocal minority of misregs who have a vested interest in having cash games and tournaments structured in a way that benefits their pockets. It doesn't benefit your overall poker economy, and it doesn't benefit your rooms business model. The silent majority of recreationals don't speak up for themselves and don't really have anyone advocating for them.

Many of the "professionals" have lost sight of the fact that their job at the tables is to be an entertainer. I want you having a grand ol' time while you lose money to me, so I can feed my cats. I was at one of the local Austin rooms a few weeks ago, it was just a 1/2 game. It was all misregs except for this one sweet recreational lady. She was stuck, she finally wins a big pot to climb out of the hole, she's not even up, just back to even. She's happy, social, conversing.

Well, the misregs could not STAND to see her happy. Every opportunity they had to call any rules infraction on her, they were taking it. I'm sitting there thinking "what the **** is wrong with you? This is the one person you WANT at your table, and you're making her experience miserable and trying to run her off"

A lot of the grinders are short-sighted, they're trying to gobble up as much of the fishes money as quickly as possible. They don't think long-term about sustainably farming the player pool. So you wind up having your fish chewed up and spat out, and then too many sharks at the table due to overfishing.

It creates games that are overly serious, not fun or social. These turn off recreationals. So you may have ten 1/2 games going, but good luck finding any that are actually worth playing in.

The reason we don't get the 2/5, etc. limits running is because the misregs want to be able to make the smaller games play larger, put the recreationals out of their comfort zones and just run them over.

Too many of the rooms focus their marketing efforts on catering to the grinders. And while I agree you need the grinders to start games, keep them running, etc. You need fun, recreational players even more, but so few rooms are bothering to market to them.

I think protecting your lower level, entry-stakes games is paramount. Newcomers need games they can learn in, without them being completely wrecked and turned off from coming back. The grinders are going to win in the long run anyway, they don't need unlimited restraddles, match the stack, etc. to tip it even further in their favor.

The same goes for unlimited rebuys for 4 hours, multi-day, multi-flight, multi-bag, top-heavy payout tournaments. All of these things are just additional edges to the better players, making it that much harder for the recreational players to have any shot.

Shear the sheep, don't slaughter them. They need to win sometimes too, so they continue playing bad and you can pay your mortgage because of it!

If you're structuring your cash games and tournaments in a way that funnels the majority of the money into the pockets of the pro's, guess what? That money is leaving your poker economy. They're using it for life expenses and large purchases.

Instead, ensure it's spread out a little flatter and more evenly. Now the recreationals have a few dollars in their pockets, it's more likely to recirculate in your poker economy and keep it chugging along.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk!

Agree with this, but undercover boss is for CEOs who want more attention on themselves and pretend they are great by spending 20k on a few random employees.

Isn't this what Owen and Neeme are for?

Isn't this the exact same set up in this situation lol?

This is spot on. I've never played in Texas but so many regs/pros are just entitled and toxic. They do nothing to cultivate a fun environment to play in. They think their job is to play better than bad players and that's it.

That's just batting practice. If you can't play better than people just playing for fun who like to gamble and see a ton of flops then you really suck at poker. They're all take a no give. If you want give up some short term ev for the good of the game then at best you are a complete clown who doesn't remotely understand what your job actually is.

Rooms that let mis regs dictate policy just create a race to the bottom. What matters is what the bad players want not the good players.


Also lol@ the poster complaining about 11 dollar an hour time charge. You'd have to be such a filthy nit for that not to be a good deal.