Neeme, Owen and Polk buy stakes in "The Lodge" poker room, Austin TX (Lodge containment thread)

The rules say you must flop the sf. It does not say there must be $20 otf. Th pot is the amount at the end of the hand. The rules are specific on when the BBJP cards have to be dealt. That is not true for the $20

If the rules said $20 in the pot otf then fine no BBJP in your scenario.

Many years ago I saw a BBJP not awarded because the winning hand was a short stack. The hand went 3 ways and the side pot was well over the$40 min. But the winning BBJP hand was only eligible for the main pot which was $36 iirc

Sucked but it was the rule.

The point is people are saying since A sf was otf the BBJP is complete as that is THE hand. But we all agree the hand must completely play out. So something that happens later can void the BBJP.

In this case the player had A sf otf. But he had a different sf otr. So THE hand that plays was not flopped

You must flop THE hand.
You must play your best 5 card hand using 2 and 3.

It is the idea that once a BBJP is flopped nothing can change that. It it is clear the hand must complete and THE hand at completion was not THE hand at the end.

Prepositions actually do matter THE does not equal A.

Wording could def be improved. But as is the logical interpretations are both hands that play must be flopped. The pot must be $20 when awarded. Hand must be played to completion.

There is also a rule that says "The winning and losing players must use exactly two hole cards to create the highest possible 5-card hand." but a bunch of you are ignoring that. Do you see how this stance is pretty hypocritical? You don't get to ignore the rules you want to ignore.

Check the rules on their website. It's there.

Do you see how not reading the whole thread before replying is pretty illogical.

This has been addressed.

The winning and losing player did use exactly 2 of their hole cards to create the best 5 card hand possible on the flop which is where the BBJ qualification is required.

When the rules have already specified it must be on the flop, and this rule makes no mention to change the street it is talking about, why qould you just assume it now means after the river?

No one is debating whether they have to use two cards from their hand. The question in my mind is what effect the phrase “flop only” has on the rules for qualifying. I think this -could- be interpreted to mean that, for the purpose of the BBJP, the players’ hands are evaluated using only the cards from the flop (in addition to two cards from the hand).

In other words, the phrase “flop only” could imply that flopping a straight flush is both a necessary and suffient condition for qualifying for the BBJP.

By contrast, I think the third rule that says both hands must be flopped implies a necessary but -not- sufficient condition.

But if it is meant to be only a necessary not sufficient condition, I don’t understand why the phrase “flop only” is also in the first rule, given that it is unquestionably less clear than the third rule.

Well said. Explained a lot more eloquently than I have tried to do.

How is this fishy at all? You don't get to cry about rules that are disclosed in advanced. It would be like turning the straight flush over straight flush and then crying that the rules are flop only.

you are ignoring that the rules say you must play your best hand. The high sf was "counterfeited" on the river to a higher sf than on the flop. Thus the hand that that player must use was not flopped.

As pointed out this is just like in a NLHE BBJP were both cards must play, a quads kicker can be counterfeited. Thus a 2 kicker can basically (actually?) never play from hold cards if the min qualifier is quad 5's.

Can the wording be improved to make it more clear? sure. But that doesn't mean the 'BBJP is over after the flop' position is actually logically supportable.

Remember the preposition used is THE not A so THE hand that gets played must be flopped. You can't flop A sf and then play a different sf. You must flop THE sf.

The rule about playing your best hand doesn’t specify that it this should be the best hand you can make including the turn and river cards.

Typically, this would be obvious, because that is the normal rule of hold-em or Omaha poker. However, in the situation, the previous rule specifies that the qualifier is determined “flop only”. So under that circumstance, one might just as reasonably interpret the “highest possible hand” as being the best hand that you can make from your hand plus the “flop only”.

The could have clarified this by either specifying that “highest possible hand” does include all board cards. -OR!- by just removing the phrase “flop only” from the first rule, which only serves to create confusion.

If we are supposed to to consider the entire board when deciding whether a hand qualifies, what does this “flop only” phrase actually add to our understanding of the rules, when the third clause already states that the “hands must be flopped”?

It means if your best hand is not the hand you had otf, then it is not a BBJP. You basically must flop a BBJP of sf over sf and then this has to hold to the river. In this case they fooled a potential BBJP but one hand subsequently improved so the BBJP did not hold to the river.

This is more common in NLHE BBJP where the quads do not have to be pocket pairs. But just because you must meet the qualifier on the flop does not mean subsequent events in the hand cannot void the BBJP. Hand is not over otf.

You cannot keep saying the same thing different ways thinking it chang s the meaning of poker terms. The rule that the hand must complete allows for BBJP to get counterfeited. But feel free to take this up with the regulating body. Oh right this is tx so the regulating body is the Lodge and they already ruled. You could sue them but unlikely state of tx would take the case.

But why does it necessarily mean what you are insisting it means? The rules don’t say anything about “holding until the river”. The rules don’t mention the flop or the river at all. They just say “flop only”, without any mention of any other streets.

I’m not going to take it up with anyone because I have no connection with anyone involved here or any interest in the outcome. But I do think the rules are poorly written and could be interpreted either way. And there are reasons to believe the intepretation supporting that the BBJP should be awarded in this case is slightly stronger.

In legal theory, there is a principle of statutory construction that no clause in a statute should be intrepreted in a way as to make it superfluous or redundant if an alternate interpretation would give the same clause independent force.

(This can be found in rule 22 of the US Supreme Court’s own rules of statutor....)

So how should the term “flop only” be constructed in the these rules?

If “flop only” in rule 1 simply means that the straight flush must be flopped for the hand to qualify, then the the term is entirely redundant of rule 3 which also states the “hands must be flopped”.

However, if “flop only” is intepreted to mean the entire qualifier for the BBJP is only evaluated on the flop, regardless of what happens on the turn and river, then the clause is not redundant of rule 3.

So in some sense this latter intepretation is more reasonable.
You could claim that this latter interpretation makes rule 3 redundant of rule 1, though in this case rule 3 is really a specifier of rule 1, which is more common in statutory language. Though I’d admit that neither interpretation is obvious and the rule really is ambiguous.

(And FWIW I am a law professor and teach this stuff as part of my job.)

The rules do say the hand must be completed and you must use you best hand. Like a said you can’t pick and chose which rule you have the meet all of them. There are at least 3 rules in play. Must flop THE (not a) sf. Must play to river. Must us best hand.

When all three are applied the intent is obvious. Though could be better worded

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

No one here is saying 100% the rules say it should be paid.
No one here should be saying 100% the rules say it shouldn't be paid.

What we are saying is that the rules are very badly written and allow for a good argument either way.

Enough that when it's a $100k swing for the players it should really be discussed further than Doug posting on social media mocking the players with a "haha" look how close you got.

If this happened at any other property i guarantee you we'd have already heard "what's up guys" with a 15min deep dive into it.

Fwiw I could probably be popped into the DP fan club, but I think he has got it wrong here.

"In omaha, both the winning hand and the losing hand must be flopped"

Winning hand was a royal flush.

Royal flush was rivered.

case closed

The working is awkward but if all rules are applied, it is still clear. WhyMaleModels put it succinctly. Gotta flop winning and losing hands. The winning hand was a Royal Flush. Said Royal Flush was not flopped; it was rivered.

You might not like DP making the 'decision' (doubt he personally did anyway, and there really was not decision to make, just follow rules) but since DP gets final say (short of player(s) filing a civil suit that I doubt TX courts would even take, what DP says really is what goes. DP is the regulating authority.

Then again, I did not see DP post a "mocking" anyway.

But keep pounding away because again, short of a law suit, the pounding doesn't matter and is no a logical reading of the rules anyway. (Though again, rules could be worded to be more clear.)

Bingo. There is no controversy here.

Can I get the last 10 minutes of my life back please.....

(Mod Edit): Re: Lodge in Round Rock.

There are literally no games anymore since Texas Card House Social opened……..i guess when you get too cocky……..ban players…….tell players you can go elsewhere if you don’t like the new rules in place………this is a direct result! They had it coming for sure……..nobody even wants to play there…….environment is toxic……..the only reason they got business anyways is because it was the only option in the Austin area………now it has been reduced to microstakes! 1/2 NL with a cap! Lmao……..keep players from playing big……..what a genius idea……..pay $11 an hour to sit in a 1/2NL game with hard cap? Furthermore disgusting restrooms…….inadequate dealers + floor persons……..and lastly implementing some rules nobody knew about to avoid payout of bad beat jackpot…….players getting robbed in the parking lot………etc etc etc……..doug polk texting players directly begging them to come back and play at the Dodge…….true story…….i actually saw the texts…….pathetic! But wait…….i believe the stream commentator said “the best thing Lodge ever did was put a cap on the games so clownasses like myself can afford to play”………haaahaaaa! Good job!

……….

Is this just a hater or is this accurate?

There is some truth to it. Both in Lodge San Antonio and Lodge Austin the 1/2 NLH games capped at $300. The bomb pots also have caps so you can only lose a limited amount of money in the bomb pot. A 1/3 NLH $1,000 cap runs at Lodge Austin. A 1/3 1k cap + match the stack runs sometimes in Lodge San Antonio. Higher stakes public games don't seem to regularly make. The 1/3 games are generally not very good.

TCH Social has been taking business in Austin since it opened up and running 2/5 seemingly daily.

SA Cardhouse has taken significant volume from Lodge San Antonio compared to when it was Rounders. Before Rounders almost always had more holdem tables running than SA. Now SA frequently has ~ 1 more holdem table running. SA Cardhouse also has the best games that play deeper. 1/2 where the straddle is on to 5 or 10 most of the time and 1/3 where the straddle is on up to 15, sometimes more. And stack depths frequently at 1k-2k+.

Before Rounders had a 1/2 game that was 75% match the stack, so the 1/2 games would get very big, but there would always be some smaller tables. There was something for everyone. Now all of the people who want to play bigger and all of the good games have gone to SA Cardhouse. That said, if you like 1/2 300 cap and capped bomb pots, Lodge is for you.

IDK about Doug texting people in Austin, but he did get a list of regulars who played at Rounders who stopped playing as much after it become Lodge San Antonio and he texted these people personally.

Doug's response has been that rec players who don't want to be forced to play super deep (IE, bum hunter sits next to them and matches after they run up a stack). That's a fair stance. There is a sizeable player pool for the 1/2 capped game. But it is what it is. The deeper, good games have moved.

And you may ask, why are we playing 1/2 with $10 straddles and 2k stacks in Texas? Why don't we just run 2/5? And I don't know the exact answer. 2/5 just isn't running regularly in some towns. Part of the answer is that since the 1/2 have a reputation for playing like a 5/10, the 2/5 and 5/5 games that have run had a reputation of running like a 10/25. And those games tend to attract a lot of professionals, which in turn makes people not want to play, which kills the game.

Part of what has happened when Lodge took over Rounders was the idea that they were going to change the structure so that there would be 1/2 300 cap for people that wanted to play that game, then there would be a 1/3, and a 2/5, etc for people that wanted to play bigger. Because that's how it is in Vegas, LA, etc. But there's a different poker culture in Texas. It just hasn't panned out the way the new owners envisioned. Instead we mainly just have bad capped 1/2 at Lodge and better games elsewhere.

Mlarks response is right on most of the points. I would debate a couple items (our volume at Lodge SA is now above levels before the takeover) and that the games at Lodge SA are bad. They are rec heavy, as pros do not want to play in the smaller capped game compared to the bigger game options. They are certainly smaller, which for some people may equate to bad. Depends on how you would want to value that.

I have been texting a good chunk of our regulars looking for feedback on how we can improve things at the club and getting their opinions. Lots of the players have been happy to give input, and I view this as a positive thing. A far cry from "begging them to come back", and if that is the case than by all means show the message I sent!

This is the same thing that we did in San Antonio, I care about the success of the clubs and want to hear what people have to say. These arent automated messages, I am sending them out personally.

As for the post about Lodge RR, we still have games running 24/7. "Literally no games" is a huge stretch compared to reality. That said, game volume has dropped and we are being proactive to hear what customers have to say and to improve.

Dont think there is a need to dive too deeply into most of the rest of that post, but wanted to weigh in briefly.

Houston player here with my two cents:

TCH Austin gave a ton of time away on their first day to entice players to check out the new venue. Will take some time for players to use that free time. The real proof in the pudding will be when players have to buy more time. Will they stay at TCH or revert back to the Lodge