Talk:Declaration (poker)

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Poker (assessed as Low-importance).

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Rationale for extra burden on both-ways declaration[edit]

If a player declares "both ways", he must have both the highest hand and the lowest hand clearly, with no losses or ties in either direction, to win the whole pot, otherwise he wins nothing (even if he would otherwise have won half). This rule (or one like it--sometimes a "both ways" hand that ties for best in one direction and wins clearly in the other may still be allowed the winning half) is necessary to prevent all players from simply declaring "both ways" every time.

This rationale doesn't make sense. It's only necessary to ensure that a "both ways" player must not *lose* either half in order to prevent players choosing this declaration all the time. This is not a rationale for placing the extra burden of "no *ties* in either direction".

A rule that satisfies "necessary to prevent all players from simply declaring "both ways" every time", but places a "both ways" declaration on a more even footing with "high" or "low" declarations, might be: If a player declares "both ways", he is contesting both high and low hand; but if he loses in either direction, he forfeits both contests. Thus, the rationale doesn't show why the rule as written is necessary.

I don't dispute the rule as described (I don't have an authoritative answer), but the rationale presented does not explain why "both ways" has the extra burden of an *unequivocal* win in both directions, and is thus disingenuous.

Rewrite[edit]

I did a rewrite covering all the various rule variations. The preferences expressed are those of professionals I have known, and in particular David Sklansky in his brief discussion of high-low declare in the original Super/System, but better references are needed. --LDC 05:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High low declarations.[edit]

If all players have their hands up and ready to declare can one player say "wait" and change his declaration?Thtis is being done BEFORE any of the players declared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwstatus (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]