OPINION: Bad Beat Jackpot Disqualified at Lodge - Is Doug Right?

[CRStals]

Doug Polk posted on Twitter / X yesterday concerning controversy around The Lodge DQ'ing a $115k+ Bad Beat Jackpot because of a "nightmare one outer"

In short,
PLO Bad Beat Jackpot is a minimum straight flush that both players must use 2 hole cards (you have to in Omaha anyways) but the hands must be flopped.

Below, two straight flushes were flopped BUT the river improved the winning hand from a King high straight flush to an ace high straight flush. By the way of the wording, this means the winning hand was NOT flopped and thus the Jackpot not awarded.

Do you agree with Doug?
Should the Lodge change the wording?

 

[5TR8 FLUSH]

I haven't seen a jackpot in person yet and don't fully understand the rules. Does "The Lodge" , in its rules say that if a jackpot improves on turn or river, jackpot is disqualified? If it doesn't, the turn and river should not matter since the flop qualifies. I disagree with "The Lodge" disqualifying this jackpot.

 

[pentazepam]

but the hands must be flopped.

If it clearly states that the winning hand must be flopped (and it's implied that it must remain the winning hand when all cards are dealt) I guess he is correct.

 

[MK_]

A bad beat didn't occur since there was no beat, he can't win the hand and claim a bad beat, .....please don't make me agree with anything Doug Polk has to say 😂👍

 

[CRStals]

I haven't seen a jackpot in person yet and don't fully understand the rules. Does "The Lodge" , in its rules say that if a jackpot improves on turn or river, jackpot is disqualified? If it doesn't, the turn and river should not matter since the flop qualifies. I disagree with "The Lodge" disqualifying this jackpot.

The rules stated that the winning hand must be flopped. They are arguing that the winning hand improved on the river, nullifying the jackpot

 

[CRStals]

If it clearly states that the winning hand must be flopped (and it's implied that it must remain the winning hand when all cards are dealt) I guess he is correct.

But the hand that won on the flop improved - one could argue the King high straight flush that was flopped still beat the Jack high straight flush. And the look of this could be taken in a very bad way...

 

[CRStals]

A bad beat didn't occur since there was no beat, he can't win the hand and claim a bad beat, .....please don't make me agree with anything Doug Polk has to say 😂👍

The hand with 87d is the bad beat and lost out on half of the 118k jackpot...

 

[MK_]

The hand with 87d is the bad beat and lost out on half of the 118k jackpot...

... I see that but if the wording is make a straight flush and lose on the flop well he didn't since the one outer river makes him lose even more if that's possible.... which apparently it is lol, ... the other guy has no claim at all

 

[pentazepam]

But the hand that won on the flop improved - one could argue the King high straight flush that was flopped still beat the Jack high straight flush. And the look of this could be taken in a very bad way...

Yes, I can see your point. If you get "more beaten" after you have flopped a straight flush (and get qualified) you can make the argument that this doesn't matter.

Their defense is that a hand isn't defined until the river. Before that is not a finished hand.

So they mean that the phrase "flop only" is just to specify what types of hands qualify.

But I understand that a point can be made that the turn and river only disqualify the BBJ hand if it improves to a winner on the turn or the river. Not if it loses "more".

I have not read the rules on their home page but they claim,: "This bad beat jackpot is "flop only," which means for it to trigger, a straight flush must lose to a superior hand on the flop. But, per the rules, the winning and losing hands must be flopped. So, in the case of the above hand, the winning hand — a royal flush — occurred on the river, making the "sad" beat jackpot null and void."

Again: I guess their defense/argument is that a hand is not a hand until the river is dealt AND the qualification that occurred on the flop doesn't matter since the winning hand is declared after the river.

They maybe could have clarified it a bit by stating that the winning and losing hands must be flopped AND not change in value even if they still are winning and losing or something.

Royal Flush on the River Disqualifies Bad Beat Jackpot at Texas Poker Room?

What a cruel river card that was.

www.pokernews.com

I still think Doug is right, but can understand that is unclear for many since the outcome doesn't change from the flop to the river - but the EXACT value of the winning hand did.

 

[CRStals]

Yes, I can see your point. If you get "more beaten" after you have flopped a straight flush (and get qualified) you can make the argument that this doesn't matter.

Their defense is that a hand isn't defined until the river. Before that is not a finished hand.

So they mean that the phrase "flop only" is just to specify what types of hands qualify.

But I understand that a point can be made that the turn and river only disqualify the BBJ hand if it improves to a winner on the turn or the river. Not if it loses "more".

I have not read the rules on their home page but they claim,: "This bad beat jackpot is "flop only," which means for it to trigger, a straight flush must lose to a superior hand on the flop. But, per the rules, the winning and losing hands must be flopped. So, in the case of the above hand, the winning hand — a royal flush — occurred on the river, making the "sad" beat jackpot null and void."

Again: I guess their defense/argument is that a hand is not a hand until the river is dealt AND the qualification that occurred on the flop doesn't matter since the winning hand is declared after the river.

They maybe could have clarified it a bit by stating that the winning and losing hands must be flopped AND not change in value even if they still are winning and losing or something.

Royal Flush on the River Disqualifies Bad Beat Jackpot at Texas Poker Room?

What a cruel river card that was.

www.pokernews.com

I still think Doug is right, but can understand that is unclear for many since the outcome doesn't change from the flop to the river - but the EXACT value of the winning hand did.

I think you defined the problem with this situation perfectly.

To be clear, I'm not on either side - I can see both arguments.

The way the rule is written, Doug is right - the hand doesn't qualify for the BBJ because the winning hand wasn't flopped.
However, I also see the poker player's side in that the hands were flopped and met the criteria for the jackpot and the river technically changed nothing in terms of who won the hand.

The Lodge doesn't seem like they are going to budge on this - and I can't blame them - but should they try and come to some sort of compromise with the players? And...will it look bad if they update the rule based on what happened?

 

[RhinoRyan89]

Rules are Rules Simples

 

[pentazepam]

I think you defined the problem with this situation perfectly.

To be clear, I'm not on either side - I can see both arguments.

The way the rule is written, Doug is right - the hand doesn't qualify for the BBJ because the winning hand wasn't flopped.
However, I also see the poker player's side in that the hands were flopped and met the criteria for the jackpot and the river technically changed nothing in terms of who won the hand.

The Lodge doesn't seem like they are going to budge on this - and I can't blame them - but should they try and come to some sort of compromise with the players? And...will it look bad if they update the rule based on what happened?

I have seen some discussions on other forums, and some think they at least should write the rules so there is almost no way to misunderstand them in the future.

Regarding what has already happened some small compensation to the players involved may at first look like a nice gesture and good PR for the Lodge - but it can also open up the question about the interpretation again.