ToP question

[CountDuckula]

I was just re-reading Sklansky's The Theory of Poker, and I came across the anecdote about his friend (whom he identified as N.S.) that lost with a royal flush, because he was not fully familiar with the rules. The situation was that in a Jacks or Better 5-card $2-$4 draw game with a bug (a Joker that could be used with an Ace or to complete a straight or flush), he was dealt A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], the bug, and Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], giving him a nut straight to open. He was 3rd to act and opened the betting for $2, whereupon everyone except the 1st two who had checked then raised and re-raised (and I believe he capped). Neither of the other 2 players took a card, which made him think that at least one of them probably could beat a straight. So, he discarded the A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and took a single card, which turned out to be the A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], giving him the royal. The betting was maxed, with N.S.' entire $40 buy-in ending up in the pot. After the cards were turned over, one player showed Kings full of 9s, and as N.S. was about to scoop the pot, the player with the full house asked, "Where's your openers?" The reply was, "What do you mean; I had a straight?" The player with the boat said, "You only drew one card; you don't have openers." The royal was declared dead, and the boat won the pot, as the card room's posted rules stated that splitting openers had to be handled by turning the card face up and putting a chip on it, rather than just mucking the discard.

My question is this: Given that the bug could form a pair with an Ace (only), could N.S. have claimed that he had a pair of Aces to open (even though that wasn't his actual opener) and held onto the pot? If that were the case, should the dealer (or floor) have upheld the "no openers" claim, or should he/she have denied it on the grounds that a legitimate opener besides the royal was possible at the showdown? Or did N.S. have to actually claim a pair of Aces to begin with, instead of saying, "I had a straight"?

Obviously, it's academic now, but that story did get me thinking about the situation, and I wondered if N.S. could have recovered his error and won the pot by pointing out that he had both an Ace and the bug, even though he'd mucked his original Ace.

-Mike

[Louie Landale]

Player had oppeners and the KsFull had no reason to complain: no floor; no decision; no story; nice hand. I don't recall the story but I suspect its stated (or read) incorrectly.

- Louie

[andyfox]

The rule in draw was that you had to show openers, just as the card room's posted rules stated. If you broke your openers, that is, discarded the card that gave you openers, you had to show it face up, so that it could be proved, after the draw, that you indeed had openers before the draw. You could claim anything you wanted to, but without proof, your claim would be worthless.

[benfranklin]

I haven't read ToP in a while, but the story is vaguely familiar. A few things bother me about the story.

1. The business about turning up the discard when splitting openers doesn't sound right. That's information the other players should not have until the hand is over.

2. Declaring that you are splitting openers is standard in any game. Any draw player should know enough to do that.

3. With the Ace-Bug in his hand, why would anyone question him about openers? They are right there on the table.

4. All NS had to say is, I had Ace-Bug to open. Saying he had a straight was a big mistake. Any experienced draw player should know better.

5. The two guys with pat hands didn't open. Hard to believe.

It's a nice story to prove a point, but methinks DS is taking some poetic license if this is an accurate retelling.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Why discard it face-up? Why not face-down, off to the side, with a chip or other marker on top?

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read ToP in a while, but the story is vaguely familiar. A few things bother me about the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me, too; that's why I was curious enough to post here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
1. The business about turning up the discard when splitting openers doesn't sound right. That's information the other players should not have until the hand is over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I agree. Face down, maybe. But face up?!?


[ QUOTE ]
2. Declaring that you are splitting openers is standard in any game. Any draw player should know enough to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not clear to me that N.S. was an experienced draw player, as his lack of familiarity with the rules of the card room was the point of this cautionary tale.


[ QUOTE ]
3. With the Ace-Bug in his hand, why would anyone question him about openers? They are right there on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's what I thought. I suppose he was hoping that he could trap N.S. into declaring that he'd started with a straight, whereupon he could make the "no openers" claim, but it seems to me that anyone who drew cards and mucked the discards might have a hard time proving that they originally had legitimate openers, even if they didn't split them.


[ QUOTE ]
4. All NS had to say is, I had Ace-Bug to open. Saying he had a straight was a big mistake. Any experienced draw player should know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. I'm wondering if he could have backpedalled and said, "Hey, I had an Ace and the Bug, I merely changed off my T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] for the T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] to turn my straight into the royal!" There's no proof it didn't happen that way, so how could the other guy make his claim stick, with the Ace-Bug staring everyone in the face?


[ QUOTE ]
5. The two guys with pat hands didn't open. Hard to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowplaying, maybe? I'd be pretty tempted to do that, sitting there with a pat K's full! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
It's a nice story to prove a point, but methinks DS is taking some poetic license if this is an accurate retelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I re-read the story a few times to make sure I had the facts right before I posted originally, though I don't have the book at hand now. I suppose I could have missed something; I'll check it again tonight.

Thanks for the input (to something that is admittedly merely morbid curiosity...)! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Mike

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
Why discard it face-up? Why not face-down, off to the side, with a chip or other marker on top?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, David Sklansky claimed that's what the posted rules said. It doesn't make sense to me, because of the amount of information it requires the player to give away, but.... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

-Mike

[pudley4]

The player (N.S.) drew the K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], not the A. Therefore it appeared he had no openers

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
The player (N.S.) drew the K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], not the A. Therefore it appeared he had no openers

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I was sure the final hand was A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [Joker] Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]; that's why I was so puzzled about the whole thing. Though if you're right, that would explain it. Guess that's another thing for me to look for tonight. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Mike

[andyfox]

In those days, there were no house dealers; we dealt the cards ourselves. In order to prevent any shennanigans, the rules stipulated the card had to be exposed, face up, if you were splitting openers. Most often, it was indeed a hand that involved the "bug" (the joker), which was used as either an ace, or to complete a straight or a flush.

So, for example, you could open with Joker-A-8-7-6, and if you wanted to draw to the straight, you would have to turn your discarded ace face up.