Draw poker qualification

[TwoOuter]

On New Years Eve, I played in a wild home game and this question came up: We were playing 5-card draw, jacks or better to open, trips or better to win. Someone opened, we all drew cards, then someone bet, and 1 person called. The person who bet did not have trips or better, only a pair of queens. The person who called had ace high- a busted flush draw.

The person who called with ace-high argued that he should win the pot because the bettor did not have trips or better. The bettor said that no one wins, and the game should continue (another hand dealt) with only the bettor and the person who called still in the game.

Tremendous discussion ensued. How is this normally played?

Thanks for any feedback

[Phat Mack]

The bettor said that no one wins, and the game should continue (another hand dealt) with only the bettor and the person who called still in the game.

The bettor is correct. The two remaining players ante again and deal. If the busted flush draw had folded on the end, the bettor would have won, and would not have had to show down a qualifier.

[TwoOuter]

That makes the most sense to me, Phat Mack. One thing it does, though, is give a bluffer a tremendous advantage. If you're last or almost last to act, it's a pretty good risk to bet whether or not you have a qualifying hand, as chances are no one made trips or better, and if someone does call, the probable worst outcome is just being dealt a new hand. Because of that advantage, some people thought the person who called the bluff should get the pot.

Thanks for the reply

[Phat Mack]

Because of that advantage, some people thought the person who called the bluff should get the pot.

I understand, but if they think about it, they'll see that eliminating the bluff turns it into a game of racehorse and kills the action. It also needs to be played with a betting structure that allows a meaningfull bluff, or at least a bluff that gives pause for thought. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

If you play it enough, you'll see that if the pot isn't won in a few hands, it becomes too large for anyone to fold. Then you have a game similar to guts/man or mouse/napalm.

Your post brought back memories of a time when I was much braver, and sought out games like this. To paraphrase Ike; I'm not the poker player I used to be--and I never was...

[TwoOuter]

Good points, and I agree that on the importance of not eliminating the bluff. Upon further reflection, though, I kind of like the idea of the Caller winning a bluff from a non-qualified Bettor, especially if the betting structure allows for a meaningful bluff. In any other game, if you correctly read someone as bluffing and call, you (generally) win the pot. Likewise, if you're caught bluffing, you generally lose. By taking away these outcomes, it makes any bet substantially less risky, and the reward for someone who makes a tough call substantially less, well, substantial.

These games are kind of fun once in a great while. Thanks for the comments, Phat Mack.