If you were still playing then the run of cards would have been different and the jackpot wouldn't have been hit, that's the only thing you can tell yourself to stay sane. Some places will give you a players share if you have chips on the table, and taking a break. That is very fair. This happens all the time though, mostly with the smaller jackpots.
If you were still playing then the run of cards would have been different and the jackpot wouldn't have been hit, that's the only thing you can tell yourself to stay sane. Some places will give you a players share if you have chips on the table, and taking a break. That is very fair. This happens all the time though, mostly with the smaller jackpots.
this is not the correct decision. Now if the place has the rules posted in this situation, then fine, but the odds of this happening are so far out, that they should pay it off. It is the players money , from the $1 jackpot rakes. (that's assuming that the cardroom is not cash-poor) The guy did have a straight flush, and both of his cards play to make a straight flush, and he beat quads. Now he isn't playing the highest possible straight flush, but it doesn't maetter , because either straight flush wins the hand anyways. Ask a cardroom floor man why you can't win a jackpot in this instance, but in an Omaha game, you can win a pot with a lower straight , and not the highest possible straight, because you HAVE to use 2 of your hole cards, and not just 1 hole card. EX, your hand in Omaha, 7S, 8S, X, X and the board reads 9,T,J,Q, 4, so using both of your cards, you have a Jack high straight, and using just the 8, you have a Q high straight. Anyways, this is a chickenshit way to get out of paying a jackpot.
this is not the correct decision. Now if the place has the rules posted in this situation, then fine, but the odds of this happening are so far out, that they should pay it off. It is the players money , from the $1 jackpot rakes. (that's assuming that the cardroom is not cash-poor) The guy did have a straight flush, and both of his cards play to make a straight flush, and he beat quads. Now he isn't playing the highest possible straight flush, but it doesn't maetter , because either straight flush wins the hand anyways. Ask a cardroom floor man why you can't win a jackpot in this instance, but in an Omaha game, you can win a pot with a lower straight , and not the highest possible straight, because you HAVE to use 2 of your hole cards, and not just 1 hole card. EX, your hand in Omaha, 7S, 8S, X, X and the board reads 9,T,J,Q, 4, so using both of your cards, you have a Jack high straight, and using just the 8, you have a Q high straight. Anyways, this is a chickenshit way to get out of paying a jackpot.
agree its a bad beat jackpot for a reason. If you could win it playing one card in your hand it would hit alot more. It's pretty standard everywhere you have to play two cards in winning the badbeat, one rule thats different is your kicker beating or tie the board in the case of four of a kind. some place pay on tie some place you have to beat it. There's an urban legend a rich lady mucked a badbeat because she didn't like the cocky little fucker she was playing against.
agree its a bad beat jackpot for a reason. If you could win it playing one card in your hand it would hit alot more. It's pretty standard everywhere you have to play two cards in winning the badbeat, one rule thats different is your kicker beating or tie the board in the case of four of a kind. some place pay on tie some place you have to beat it. There's an urban legend a rich lady mucked a badbeat because she didn't like the cocky little fucker she was playing against.
In omaha , just like in bad beat jackpots the language is "you have to use two cards" there is absolutely no dispute.
In omaha , just like in bad beat jackpots the language is "you have to use two cards" there is absolutely no dispute.
Technically NO, his cards dont play. TEXAS HOLD EM is the BEST 5 card hand that plays, not, lets exclude the river card cuz we still have an awesome hand without it too!!!! Theres no debate, A lawyer wouldnt accomplish anything, other than taking a guy like your money for thinking so. Not taking a shot at you godfather but the rules are simple, i dont see why you think a lawyer could win
Technically NO, his cards dont play. TEXAS HOLD EM is the BEST 5 card hand that plays, not, lets exclude the river card cuz we still have an awesome hand without it too!!!! Theres no debate, A lawyer wouldnt accomplish anything, other than taking a guy like your money for thinking so. Not taking a shot at you godfather but the rules are simple, i dont see why you think a lawyer could win
No, actually the guy with the A,2, both of his cards don't play, I've seen one card staright flushes like this and of course jackpots don't pay out on this.
No, actually the guy with the A,2, both of his cards don't play, I've seen one card staright flushes like this and of course jackpots don't pay out on this.
Are you kidding? Seriously?
You are using Omaha as your example as to why a jackpot should be paid in Hold'em? You really want to use that example? You want to use a card game with different rules to justify as to why another card game should get paid? That is just stupid.
Hold'em rules is that the best 5 cards play, correct?
Jackpot rules state that BOTH cards have to play, correct?
So what's so hard to understand?
Are you kidding? Seriously?
You are using Omaha as your example as to why a jackpot should be paid in Hold'em? You really want to use that example? You want to use a card game with different rules to justify as to why another card game should get paid? That is just stupid.
Hold'em rules is that the best 5 cards play, correct?
Jackpot rules state that BOTH cards have to play, correct?
So what's so hard to understand?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.