Need a ruling (and a rule): Moxington (1 Viewer)

[Moxie Mike]

We play a game called 'Moxington' as part of our rotation. Moxington is a split pot double board game where the best 5 card Omaha Hi hand at showdown splits the pot and eliminates that board. (The surviving board is then used to determine a winner for the other half of the pot in a 5-card super super-holdem hand... but that's not really relevant to this thread).

Tonight we ran into a situation where after the river cards were placed and the final betting round was done, the winning hand was identical on both boards - a broadway straight.

This is problematic since we couldn't determine which board to eliminate.

We ended up splitting the Omaha half and electing not to eliminate a board, so the super-holdem hand was determined using both boards.

It was an amicable solution for a problem we didn't have a rule for, but I'd like to get something in place in case this happens again.

3 possible solutions were suggested but we didn't come up with a permanent rule:

1) Create a rule consistent with how we handled it tonight;

2) Use the strength of the cards in the pocket as a tie-breaker. For example of one board was 10-J-Q-X-X and the other was A-K-10-X-X the player holding A-K would win the pot over the guy holding J-Q;

3) Split the entire pot evenly and forgo the super-holdem side of things.

Thoughts?

 

[Natskule]

We play a game called 'Moxington' as part of our rotation. Moxington is a split pot double board game where the best 5 card Omaha Hi hand at showdown splits the pot and eliminates that board. (The surviving board is then used to determine a winner for the other half of the pot in a 5-card super super-holdem hand... but that's not really relevant to this thread).

Tonight we ran into a situation where after the river cards were placed and the final betting round was done, the winning hand was identical on both boards - a broadway straight.

This is problematic since we couldn't determine which board to eliminate.

We ended up splitting the Omaha half and electing not to eliminate a board, so the super-holdem hand was determined using both boards.

It was an amicable solution for a problem we didn't have a rule for, but I'd like to get something in place in case this happens again.

3 possible solutions were suggested but we didn't come up with a permanent rule:

1) Create a rule consistent with how we handled it tonight;

2) Use the strength of the cards in the pocket as a tie-breaker. For example of one board was 10-J-Q-X-X and the other was A-K-10-X-X the player holding A-K would win the pot over the guy holding J-Q;

3) Split the entire pot evenly and forgo the super-holdem side of things.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't go with 2 as it doesn't always solve the problem, both players could make Broadway holding an AK. No reason to make a tiebreaking rule that only works some of the time. Seems like the way you handled should work all the time.

 

[TheOffalo]

I actually like what you decided to do in the moment as a rule. I like #2 too.

You could also do something like the "Consolation" game I mentioned in your original Moxington post, where you "discard" the winning hole cards and then use the remaining hole cards with the board to determine who has the best hand after that as a tiebreaker.

So in your example, if the first player ignores his/her AK and the second player ignores his/her JQ, who between them has the best hand playing two out of the remaining three hole cards with the board.

 

[TheOffalo]

I wouldn't go with 2 as it doesn't always solve the problem, both players could make Broadway holding an AK. No reason to make a tiebreaking rule that only works some of the time. Seems like the way you handled should work all the time.

There could be a potential tie with many different methods.

Could always randomize and flip a coin to always eliminate one board if there's a tie.

 

[BarrieJ3]

#2 sounds horrid as this isn’t generally done in any other omaha split pot/circus game I’m aware of, so introducing a brand new game mechanic specific to this, to me personally, spells disaster eventually. (I may be completely wrong)

#3 is taking something that is already slightly luck based (one board going away and super super hold ‘em so that at min someone should always have a flush), and demolishing it. There’s some precedent for not knowing until the river what the pot split would be (like no low coming in for Big O), but to not know if a pot will be split for a portion of the game until half way through showdown? I mean personally to me it’s just bastardizing the game or making up deus ex machina rules to make up for poor/missing rules in the first place.

The only thing that makes remote sense to me from a consistency perspective is that players are quartered for their half. You could introduce the other version that removes both boards and kills the hold ‘em hand as a variant that can be called, but yeah that’s a bit bogus if the hold ‘em hand is actually better - someone with a stronger hand on the available boards get 0 because of the predetermined order of operations? Seems counter intuitive to me and something I think is seen at a LOT of these house made games - rules for the sake of rules that don’t play well.

 

[BGinGA]

I prefer rule #1, and really don't like rule #2 or rule #3 (for valid reasons already stated above).

Only other option I'd give serious consideration to is rule #4:

The Omaha pot half is split between the winners, with both boards retained and used for super-hold'em -- same as in your proposed rule #1 -- but the super-hold'em pot half is also split between the winners of each board.

This approach is a bit more fair, as it doesn't penalize the super-hold'em hands as much (vs declaring only one winner across both boards), yet a scoop is still possible by a single hand winning both boards. This is the rule I would implement.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I vote for rule #1. How you handled it is how I would have wanted to handle it, and it's consistent with my understanding of how it works in Derailment if all 3 boards catch the same river (all 3 boards stand, as opposed to all 3 getting killed).

 

[TheOffalo]

I vote for rule #1. How you handled it is how I would have wanted to handle it, and it's consistent with my understanding of how it works in Derailment if all 3 boards catch the same river (all 3 boards stand, as opposed to all 3 getting killed).

Depending on who's hosting, I've definitely played Derailment games where all 3 boards get killed, the pot stays, and a new hand is dealt. So all variations exist.

 

[ArielVer18]

How about highest card by suit in the five card Omaha hand determines the board to eliminate? Suits will only be used as part of this game mechanic. The Omaha half of the pot will split as normal.

 

[TheOffalo]

@JRald07 suits matter?

 

[Moxie Mike]

How about highest card by suit in the five card Omaha hand determines the board to eliminate? Suits will only be used as part of this game mechanic. The Omaha half of the pot will split as normal.

Suits can't matter at showdown. They only are used to determine the bring-in in stud games.

The Omaha pot half is split between the winners, with both boards retained and used for super-hold'em -- same as in your proposed rule #1 -- but the super-hold'em pot half is also split between the winners of each board.

This is the way we're going to go with it.

 

[Dbxela]

It's a made up game (as they all are!) suits can matter at showdown if they want!

 

[Machine]

I would handle it like Derailment where instead of both boards stay, I would say the board with the lowest river card goes. OR you could pop off two new cards and the lowest of those go away.

You could also just state that the second board always goes away.

If they both stay then you could say the best high hand wins.

 

[JustinInMN]

How about highest card by suit in the five card Omaha hand determines the board to eliminate? Suits will only be used as part of this game mechanic. The Omaha half of the pot will split as normal.

Suits can't matter at showdown. They only are used to determine the bring-in in stud games.

Yeah I was at first thinking along @ArielVer18 's line, but I can see your reasoning for not wanting to do that since it is a dramatic impact at showdown. But I don't think you could do your suggestion #2 for a similar reason either.

The Omaha pot half is split between the winners, with both boards retained and used for super-hold'em -- same as in your proposed rule #1 -- but the super-hold'em pot half is also split between the winners of each board.

This approach is a bit more fair, as it doesn't penalize the super-hold'em hands as much (vs declaring only one winner across both boards), yet a scoop is still possible by a single hand winning both boards. This is the rule I would implement.

I do think @BGinGA has the right idea (and I see you agree @Moxie Mike ) , this approach avoids a dramatic arbitrary punishment for this quirk on the Omaha side, and gives a fair chance to the super hold'em winner of each board since neither board can be fairly eliminated.

 

[BarrieJ3]

That’s bizarre.

The game is called as a high/high game.

Seems strange that because plo folks are getting quartered, that now what was the winning hold ‘em hand now doesn’t get half.

I don’t think these are good because they entirely change the structure of how half the hand is being determined, based on the likelihood of how the other half the pot is being determined. Eventually it’s going to get to the point of giving everyone their chips back from the pot and calling it a full tie.

At some point too many variations has a declining return effect, and eventually negative. If you’re implementing the above, then things become arbitrary. And at that point you run into degens going ok, “Moxington, but this time it’s super super holdem first, and remaining board is omaha”. And so on and so forth - which isn’t a bad thing, just means that games and rules become piecemeal.

 

[FordPickup92]

Depending on who's hosting, I've definitely played Derailment games where all 3 boards get killed, the pot stays, and a new hand is dealt. So all variations exist.

Boo this rule