|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 9/7/2008 5:42:57 PM PACIFIC |
 Question about full house, Quark, 30. Dec 2003 10:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Okay... stupid newbie question... Does KKKJJ beat KKK99? Or do you only count the trips, so both players would split the pot? Thanks. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Question about full house, Coconut, 30. Dec 2003 10:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You look at the trips first, so KKK99 would beat QQQAA (Even though that senario can not play in hold'em) but if the trips are tied, then you look at the pair, so yes, KKKJJ is the winner | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Then Caro is WRONG?, Quark, 30. Dec 2003 11:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If that is true, then Mike Caro's "Fundamental Secrets of Winning Poker" book (2002, 3rd edition) is WRONG. I quote: "Full house. . . . Ties: Higher rank of the Three of a Kind within the Full House wins. Extra pair doesn't matter." This can't be right!? It looks like the extra pair DOES MATTER!!!!??? It matters if the players' trips are TIED. Can anyone explain Caro's sentence? I don't get it. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, Highflyin3484k, 30. Dec 2003 11:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Perhaps you are reading draw poker In hold'em the pair does matter | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, Dezperado, 30. Dec 2003 12:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 30. Dec 2003 11:16 Quark wrote: > If that is true, then Mike Caro's "Fundamental Secrets of Winning Poker" book (2002, 3rd > edition) is WRONG. > > I quote: > > "Full house. . . . Ties: Higher rank of the Three of a Kind within the Full House wins. > Extra pair doesn't matter." > > This can't be right!? It looks like the extra pair DOES MATTER!!!!??? It matters if the > players' trips are TIED. > > Can anyone explain Caro's sentence? I don't get it. Depends on what kind of game you are reading about. In some forms of poker a three-of-a-kind can be tied (hold'em, omaha), and in some it cannot (draw/stud). In hold'em/omaha players share some cards, but in draw/stud all the cards are in the players hand. So trips or a full house confrontation in draw/stud there will always be a player with three-of-a-kind higher than his opponents three-of-a-kind . "Extra pair doesn't matter."---because the three-of-a-kind tie cannot happen. Tied three-of-a-kind is possible in games like hold'em/omaha because players share some cards. Then the "kickers" come into play. BTW: Caro is right. In th equote he is talking about a full house with one three-of-a-kind higher than another three-of-a-kind. Not a tie like in your original post. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, Angel, 30. Dec 2003 12:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It's great to think critically but if that critical thinking makes you draw a conclusion that Mike Caro is wrong - it's best to re-re-consider. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, Highflyin3484k, 30. Dec 2003 12:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| lol, question the mad scientist him self... CARO YOU"VE BEEN CALLED OUT!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, Quark, 30. Dec 2003 14:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| read it yourself... I quoted from page 16 of the source I cited. (to be fair, the author does include a parenthetical disclaimer at the top of the page saying "Applicable to almost all poker games where high hand wins") -- but something tells me he didn't intend to exclude Hold 'em and Draw Poker with wild cards from his analysis. The discussion of full house ties was probably MEANT to be inclusive of these games... and thus, IMHO wrong. Don't get me wrong, I would go to MCU in a hearbeat... other than that, I thought the book had some great info in it. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, Highflyin3484k, 30. Dec 2003 14:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Re-read the quote, he is talking about if someone has say 222AA, and another player has 33322, the pair on the two trips dont matter. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, wolvish, 5. Jan 2004 20:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 30. Dec 2003 14:27 Highflyin3484k wrote: > Re-read the quote, he is talking about if someone has say 222AA, and another player has 33322, the pair on the > two trips dont matter. Exactly right. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, Harold Pierce, Jr., 30. Dec 2003 13:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| That statement is wrong and is the result of sloppy writing and editing. If the game is 5 card draw with deuces wild, then ties are possible for full houses. If both players have the exact same hand, they split the pot. If the trips are the same, then the hand with the higher pair wins the pot. MouseEars | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, duquedelsol, 30. Dec 2003 13:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Could also be a context issue...perhaps he was talking about the 6th and 7th cards of a hand... For instance - suppose the board in hold em was KKKJJ - one person held 99 and the other 77...that could be the extra pair he is talking about... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, Dezperado, 30. Dec 2003 13:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 30. Dec 2003 13:13 Harold Pierce, Jr. wrote: > That statement is wrong and is the result of sloppy writing and > editing. If the game is 5 card draw with deuces wild, then ties are > possible for full houses. I regretted that post the second I sent it. If both players have the exact same hand, > they split the pot. If the trips are the same, then the hand with > the higher pair wins the pot. > MouseEars I know I didn't say it but what I meant to say is what Harold Pierce just said. Enough said. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, Harold Pierce, Jr., 31. Dec 2003 01:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| One great feature of this site is that you can extract your e-foot from your e-mouth within 24 hrs, i.e., you can edit your posts by clicking on the pencil icon. One problem authors of poker and similar books have is that publishers rarely have in-house experts who have the technical knowledge to catch and fix errors of this nature. MouseEars | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Then Caro is WRONG?, PairTheBoard, 31. Dec 2003 06:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It's a little hard to pass judgement on a quote taken out of context and which includes a "..." gap to start it off. It looks like he is providing the ranking of hands and briefly explaining that when comparing two full houses it's the trips that are looked at first. He may have traded brevity for exhastive accuracy though. He probably should have continued after "the pair doesn't matter" with : ...' except for breaking ties in a game where it's possible that both hands have the same 3 of a kind'. However, maybe he just figured anyone with a little common sense could figure that part out.. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Question about full house, DRich, 30. Dec 2003 13:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| An example where the pair doesn't matter is if there is a higher pair on board Player 1: 7 7 Player 2: J J Board: KQKKQ In this case the pair of queens is higher than either players pair so it is a split pot. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Question about full house, Quark, 30. Dec 2003 14:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| yes but in that case, both players have the SAME HAND.... so of course they split the pot. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Question about full house, SmallFeesh, 5. Jan 2004 21:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| ??????...... I'm confused! I haven't read the book... and I would have to read the chapter... or at least the page to understand fully... obviously there is more info included?? Kings full of jacks beats kings full of nines... bottom line... no other possibilities.... so there has to be something more to the quote... something said before or something said after that sheds light on the subject..... "You're raising ME? Are you SURE?" | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|