Sunday, December 12, 2010

Revised Seven-Deuce rules

These rules supersede the previously published rules.

* The Seven-Deuce game is on by default for the midweek Hold'em game. It is optional at any other time.
* Any player may opt out of playing. They would not owe anything if losing to 7-2 nor would they win anything if they win with 7-2.
* It is not necessary to have unanimous participation for the game to proceed. If there is not unanimous participation it is the individual player's responsibility to know who is or is not playing. In accordance with the "one player per hand" rule no one else may assist a player asking if an opponent is playing 7-2 while in the middle of the hand. If a player asks his opponent directly the opponent may answer with whatever response he wishes regardless of its accuracy.
* In order to win the Seven-Deuce game, a player must show hole cards consisting of a Seven and a Deuce (off-suit or suited) and be the sole winner of the main pot.
* Any player who played their cards in the same hand that 7-2 was shown owes the bounty to the player holding 7-2.
* The bounty for scooping a pot with 7-2 is $2 from each person.
* Winning an uncontested pot with 7-2 due to the rest of the table folding qualifies as winning the hand.
* The procedure for a 7-2 hand is the following: After all betting action has completed, if a player with 7-2 qualifies for the bounty and shows the hand to the table then every player who is playing the 7-2 game and took action in the hand puts the the $2 bounty in front of them. The dealer will sweep the bounty chips to the winner(s) first then award the pot. Do not throw the chips or splash the pot with the 7-2 bounties.

[The rule below is effective as of January 10, 2011]
* If a player loses to a 7-2 hand they owe no more than the balance of their stack at the end of the hand. In other words, a player who ends up with .25 to $2.00 after losing to 7-2 just owes the rest of their stack - they will not need to go in to pocket or owe any of a rebuy. If a player completely busts out to 7-2 they owe nothing.

5 comments:

Marshall said...

* It is not necessary to have unanimous participation for the game to proceed. If there is not unanimous participation it is the individual player's responsibility to know who is or is not playing. In accordance with the "one player per hand" rule no one else may assist a player asking if an opponent is playing 7-2 while in the middle of the hand. If a player asks his opponent directly the opponent may answer with whatever response he wishes regardless of its accuracy.

I don't understand this one. We are supposed to just have it all memorized before every hand? I mean what if we just sat down? I think anyone should be able to ask at any time who is or isn't in the 72 game. I mean the question is 90% of the time moot anyway since everyone or nobody plays.

But it's just natural that this question would come up only when one was in a hand and then having them cut off from that information would be awkward.

Also it puts this weird onus on people to ask this dumb question every time they sat down in the game.

Is there a better way?

Sushi Cowboy said...

As you said, it's largely a moot issue since it almost always unanimous one way or the other.

However, I do feel that it would be improper for a third party to essentially say that the odds of a player bluffing with 72 is now X% higher or lower than you might be thinking. If a player wants to make notes to himself that's fine. If we need to create a marker to indicate an opt out, that's fine too. In general I try to make sure that new or rare players to the midweek game understand the status of 72 being on by default. I do not believe there has been a case of a single player opting out before other players show up but I would do my best to notify late comers as to the status of the opt out. A player is welcome to ask for status at any time *between* hands and get an accurate answer. Another option is to mandate that the player being asked must answer truthfully though that would be en exception to our table talk house rule.

I'll go with the flow of the group but I firmly believe that "one player per hand" should be enforced in whatever option we want to go with.

Marshall said...

I wasn't suggesting that the player should have to talk during the hand, but I was suggesting that the players in the hand have all the information available to them about the 72 game. Basically my solution would just be to ask you or anyone at the table if the player was in the 72 game. You can obviously just ask the villain too, but he doesn't have to answer.

The problem with making it available in between hands is that nobody will ask at that time, it only becomes relevant to them when they are already in the pot.

This really isn't an issue though, as we usually don't play the 72 game unless every does (although exceptions have happened). Also I think most of us would just answer if the person didn't know.

Sushi Cowboy said...

My only issue here is that I feel that asking a bystander in the middle of a hand is basically getting advice which violates the one player per hand rule.

I don't care what the group decides as long as it doesn't involve getting an answer from a third party in the middle of a hand.

If you think this needs broader discussion with the group then we can bring it up during TuNP and/or have people blog it out.

Sushi Cowboy said...

Another option would be to require unanimous consent on playing the 7-2 game.