Bad Beat Jackpot controversy at The Lodge (1 Viewer)

[JustinInMN]

Surprised there isn't a thread on this yet, it happened on Friday. Omaha Bad Beat not paid out at The Lodge because of flop only requirement.

https://www.pokernews.com/news/2024/08/poker-bad-beat-jackpot-the-lodge-card-club-46766.htm

So to me the only way this ruling makes sense is if the interpretation of the rules is such that the same 5 cards must play on the flop and river. The river changed one of the hands, invalidating the flop requirement.

Now I have never heard of a flop requirement before regarding a BBJ, so please fill me in if anyone of you have hear did this before.

The restriction obviously is to make it difficult to hit so it's a multi-year build of this jackpot, in which case the rule is working as designed.

Though I do question if the complexity, ambiguity, and resulting bad press has undermined the benefits of a BBJ promotion here.

 

[upNdown]

That seems like a really stupid rule. I’ve never heard of a BBJ with a rule like that, but to be fair, I’ve never read the fine print either. It’s almost like two stupid rules 1) the bad beat has to be flopped and 2) neither hand can be altered or improved by the turn and the river.

The rule actually seems to run counter to its title - as written, it’s really a BAD COOLER jackpot, and not actually a bad beat jackpot.

So the question is why? Is the goal of paying out as infrequently as possible to save them the inconvenience of sitting a bunch of checks? Or is it in hopes that the jackpot will build to some crazy amount?

 

[demonnic]

<cynical>It's to collect the interest on the jackpot in your bank account for as long as possible</cynical>

 

[Rhodeman77]

When Horseshoe ran the Cleveland casino and had 1 BBJ pool it was getting hit pretty much in PLO only. It was changed to have a higher minimum hand requirement and then later on that it also had to be flopped. They did this too for the hourly high hand bonuses. Eventually PLO had its own BBJ pool before it was then done away with entirely.

So the “on the flop” requirement because of it being PLO isn’t unique to the Lodge.

 

[JustinInMN]

So the “on the flop” requirement because of it being PLO isn’t unique to the Lodge.

Thank you this was the sort of answer I was wondering about, I supposed it wouldn't be easy to recall how they define "on the flop" and if it was in the same manner in which The Lodge is meaning their rule.

 

[dpeks13]

Worst. Royal Flush. Ever.

 

[Machine]

On the flop really should only be for high hand where they mingle the funds between PLO and NLH, in hourly promos.
In PLO high hand hits only on the flop, okay - but as far as a BBJ where you have to hit a straight flush over a straight flush, this is never going to happen in holdem.

A real issue with all of this is the funds and the likeliness that this will pay out. I think this is one of the fundamental red flags for poker laws in any state. I think this could be one of the downfalls where it appears to be abuse and greed. I think law makers and courts will view this as an angle for the poker room, and given this sum of money and the controversy will be a negative on the outcomes.

I also think for BBJ they should hit a threshold where the requirements for payout are lowered with time.

Also I think it's easy to view that the made hand was beat on the flop, which still meets the requirements. While it is implied to win a hand cards speak for themselves, I would request a court / lawyer scrutinizes the terms laid out in the details of the written documentation for the explicit payouts. Personally there is nothing implied that the hand causing the bad beat actually win the hand, while that may be assumed; I would argue that interested parties shouldn't be able define it ex post facto

 

[Rhodeman77]

Thank you this was the sort of answer I was wondering about, I supposed it wouldn't be easy to recall how they define "on the flop" and if it was in the same manner in which The Lodge is meaning their rule.

The Horseshoe/Jack Cleveland version was the same as the Lodge. There was a similar circumstance that happened but on a much smaller bad beat, maybe a few thousand dollars. It got hit so much that it was dropped as a promotion for PLO.

 

[glynn]

A one-outer on the river, perhaps for the first time ever, killed a bad beat jackpot

If they mean the first time ever anywhere, then I'm pretty sure that's not true. You don't need a "flop only" requirement, just the rather common "two hole cards" requirement:






The above river counterfeits the nine-high straight flush with a ten-high straight flush.

 

[Tonysquander]

If they mean the first time ever anywhere, then I'm pretty sure that's not true. You don't need a "flop only" requirement, just the rather common "two hole cards" requirement:






The above river counterfeits the nine-high straight flush with a ten-high straight flush.

Would still be 9 high, no?

 

[Rhodeman77]

Would still be 9 high, no?

But no longer uses both hole cards to make the best hand possible. The SF hand is now 6-10. Not using the 5.

 

[Machine]

But no longer uses both hole cards to make the best hand possible. The SF hand is now 6-10. Not using the 5.

This is the same point I was making; The BBJ says both hands have to be made on the flop, if you're going to restrict the qualifications to the flop, you can't have it both ways, you can't nullify the BBJ when then winning hand improves, moving the goal, literally this is called moving the goal!! haha (I know you know, just calling attention to it!)

and I know you're actually arguing for 2 card requirements, gets you there

 

[TheOffalo]

There's was a decent discussion of this on Reddit the other day with Doug Polk chiming in:

https://www.reddit.com/r/poker/comments/1etr324/thoughts_on_this_situation

He did say they are considering an anti-counterfeiting rule to avoid this situation in the future.

 

[JustinInMN]

If they mean the first time ever anywhere, then I'm pretty sure that's not true. You don't need a "flop only" requirement, just the rather common "two hole cards" requirement:






The above river counterfeits the nine-high straight flush with a ten-high straight flush.

The original story is a about an Omaha hand, so the two card requirement is already in play, still it would appear the flop only requirement is to add difficulty.

That said I was in a similar limit hold'em hand to what you describe about 10 years ago or so.

To the best of my memory I had on a flop of I don't recall the turn but I remember being delighted to hit the on the river for a straight flush. The villian in this hand went 6 bets with me on the river and I knew what he had and I knew it didn't qualify because I was only playing one hole card. Of course he has also flopping a flush and also rivering the straight flush. But because I only had the and not we would not qualify.

 

[JustinInMN]

This is the same point I was making; The BBJ says both hands have to be made on the flop, if you're going to restrict the qualifications to the flop, you can't have it both ways, you can't nullify the BBJ when then winning hand improves, moving the goal, literally this is called moving the goal!! haha (I know you know, just calling attention to it!)

and I know you're actually arguing for 2 card requirements, gets you there

This is the exact question a judge should answer if a lawsuit is to come of this, as you suggested in post #7.

 

[upNdown]

This is the same point I was making; The BBJ says both hands have to be made on the flop, if you're going to restrict the qualifications to the flop, you can't have it both ways, you can't nullify the BBJ when then winning hand improves, moving the goal, literally this is called moving the goal!! haha (I know you know, just calling attention to it!)

and I know you're actually arguing for 2 card requirements, gets you there

This is the exact question a judge should answer if a lawsuit is to come of this, as you suggested in post #7.

The article makes it pretty clear that there’s a rule that applies. You can argue it isn’t fair, you can argue that it’s moving the goalposts, but I don’t see how there’s any dispute here.

 

[JustinInMN]

The article makes it pretty clear that there’s a rule that applies. You can argue it isn’t fair, you can argue that it’s moving the goalposts, but I don’t see how there’s any dispute here.
View attachment 1376056

The dispute I guess is if the winning an losing hands are "flopped" whether or not the turn and river change that definition. Does this wording imply that the flop is all that matters, or is the definition of the winning subject to change by the turn and river, even if not mentioned in this rule? I honestly don't know which is right. I see your argument @upNdown, but I also see an argument that the relevance of the turn and river is implicit at best because of general poker rules. Is that good enough to support the ruling that was made? I don't know. (Probably yes, given most houses say floor decisions are final. I imagine if they have any defense of the ruling at all, it probably insulates The Lodge enough legally speaking. But it would make for interesting litigation.)

My broader point is they have found a downside to the pursuit of making a jackpot so tough it costs them in terms of bad press and possible legal defense expense. I guess I am as interested in thinking about that as I am what the technically correct ruling is.

 

[upNdown]

The dispute I guess is if the winning an losing hands are "flopped" whether or not the turn and river change that definition. Does this wording imply that the flop is all that matters. I honestly don't know which is right. I can see an argument each way.

My broader point is they have overcomplicated a promotion to a point where they are taking bad press for it.

We’d have to see the exact wording of the rules to know for sure. But I’d assume pokernews got it right, until proven otherwise.
And your broader point is dead on - bad look for The Lodge, and for what? I assume this promotion is funded directly by an additional drop/rake, so why not have a promotion that generates news for good reasons, like paying out?
If the reason actually is that they’re nickel and diming the system to pull interest and admin fees out of the jackpot, eff them.

OHHHHHHH. I just realized that they’re a Texas club, and the promotion is NOT funded by an additional drop/rake. They’re essentially paying this out of their advertising funds or whatever. So of course they don’t want anybody winning. EFF THEM!

 

[Machine]

The article makes it pretty clear that there’s a rule that applies. You can argue it isn’t fair, you can argue that it’s moving the goalposts, but I don’t see how there’s any dispute here.
View attachment 1376056

Who wrote it and when?

 

[upNdown]

Who wrote it and when?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. If it’s just that I don’t know anything about the author, fair enough - I’ll trust they got it right, but I don’t blame you for questioning it. If there’s more to your point that I’m not catching, please let me know.

 

[TheOffalo]

Here are the rules: https://thelodgepokerclub.com/badbeat/

Relevant rules:

The winning hand that hand was a Royal Flush. So while the two players met all the other requirements (rules 8-12), since the King high straight flush was no longer the winning hand on the river, and therefore the flopped hand was not the winning hand at the end.

 

[JustinInMN]

OHHHHHHH. I just realized that they’re a Texas club, and the promotion is NOT funded by an additional drop/rake. They’re essentially paying this out of their advertising funds or whatever. So of course they don’t want anybody winning. EFF THEM!

Oh I had the same assumption until you said that.

That certainly changes how favorable I would look at the room.

 

[JustinInMN]

Here are the rules: https://thelodgepokerclub.com/badbeat/

Relevant rules:

View attachment 1376087

The winning hand that hand was a Royal Flush. So while the two players met all the other requirements (rules 8-12), since the King high straight flush was no longer the winning hand on the river, and therefore the flopped hand was not the winning hand at the end.

I do think #13 does mean they made the right ruling according to their rules.

On an aside, I think there is only one way to qualify in big-o. 98 vs AK with a QJT flop all the same suit. I really don't see how exactly a 9 high straight flush could be the losing hand on any board with a higher straight flush possible. Any higher straight flush would require the presence of a 10.

The qualifier could be q-hi and not a thing would change.

 

[JustinInMN]

Who wrote it and when?

Really?

I mean you could click the link and see this in 2 seconds.

 

[Tonysquander]

But no longer uses both hole cards to make the best hand possible. The SF hand is now 6-10. Not using the 5.

OK well I am confused. Since when is not using two of your hole cards optional to make the best hand in Omaha? The best hand you can have with those hole cards and that run out is a 9 high straight flush. The 10 is irrelevant because I cannot use it. On the Lodge hand the A was relevant because it still played with the K Q hole cards and made the straight flush higher that what was flopped.

If that was supposed to be a NLHE hand then I agree with you but I thought it was Omaha.

 

[Frogzilla]

I thought pretty standard to restrict Omaha hands to flop only when mixing holdem and PLO for jackpots.

And by rule this is not BBJ. First I’ve heard of a counterfeited BBJ but not really controversial.

The room bumps the jackpot $1k per day so I don’t think it’s interest arbitrage on the $100k promo budget.

Are they getting an excess profit of $1k per day while it’s running (and thus prefer jackpot to not be hit)…probably. But still, the rules are the rules. Nothing really amiss as far as I can see

 

[Rhodeman77]

OK well I am confused. Since when is not using two of your hole cards optional to make the best hand in Omaha? The best hand you can have with those hole cards and that run out is a 9 high straight flush. The 10 is irrelevant because I cannot use it. On the Lodge hand the A was relevant because it still played with the K Q hole cards and made the straight flush higher that what was flopped.

If that was supposed to be a NLHE hand then I agree with you but I thought it was Omaha.

In the example that I was replying to the hands shown were Hold’em hands, not PLO.

 

[JustinInMN]

I thought pretty standard to restrict Omaha hands to flop only when mixing holdem and PLO for jackpots.

To be honest, I am not all that familiar with mixing jackpot funds. Everywhere I have played the funds are separate and the rules are always tougher for Omaha.

(Example, my local club Canterbury Park is quad 8s beaten in Omaha, and quad 2s in hold'em.)

I guess imto me making the qualifier tougher is enough of a handicap for the extra cards in Omaha. The flop only restriction I guess just struck me as excessive, complicated, and as we now see, prone to controversy.

 

[DrStrange]

If I were the victim of this bad beat, I would be headed to court. And in doing so, I would be explicitly raising the question of the legality of the room in addition to arguing about getting paid for the bad beat. Let's give the house some real skin in the game - if the poker room loses this fight, and they lose everything.

Good luck trying to explain to a jury or the bench why the player lost the jackpot. Yes, you still had a qualifying losing hand, but the winning straight flush got bigger. You still lost; each hold a qualifying hand, but some poorly written / unwritten rule voided the payout. I am not seeing anything about this special rule in the terms and conditions.

It would be a bit shocking if there isn't an arbitration clause and/or a clause stating that members must pay the Lodge for its legal expenses in the case of a court fight even if they win in court. It is plausible that the players have given up their rights to a trial for damages. Bet each "member" signed a multi-page member's agreement to join.

Might even be worth making a criminal complaint if the Lodge doesn't pay. This is effectively free and again puts the Lodge in a freerolling situation to lose their business.

Perhaps it is true that any publicity is "good" publicity. But I can see plenty of downside here -=- DrStrange

 

[Lovejoyz]

And they would say, "Oh, and YOU chose to play at this invalid/illegal room?"

I'd question the validity of the card room first:
If we deem the card room to be illegal, or not confiding in the Texas gaming laws, which has some of the most strict gaming laws in the country, then you aren't getting paid. If it isn't a valid cardroom, then nothing that happens there under that context will be applicable. You lose.

If it IS valid, the rules are posted clearly, and you chose to play that game. You shouldn't have sat down and agreed to play if you didn't like the rules. You lose still.


It reminds me of the woman who called the cops, because she gave her neighbor $50 for crack-cocaine, and the neighbor never gave her the drugs, so she called the police.
We had a similar incident where a poker player called the police because he thought the home game host shorted him money on his cash-out...in a state where home poker games are illegal. The police showed up and asked the caller if he'd been playing in an illegal underground poker game that was against state law. The caller got a bit panicky, and stated, 'well...no'. So the police turned around and left.