High-Low Declare Rules

A controversial situation

Because of my poker rules and writings, I get a lot of questions regarding rules. I recently got a question about the rules of high-low split when played with a declare. This game is rarely played in a casino, but is popular in private games. As far as I know, there are no written rules for this poker form from any "official" sources. Furthermore, there are a lot of different points to cover in the rules, and more than one way of doing things for most of these points. Here is the letter:

We play poker once a week, mostly high-low games. At the end of the betting, we declare by using chips. No chips is low, one chip is high, and two chips is high and low. The rule we use is that if you declare both high and low and lose one, you lose both; if you win one and tie the other, you win three-fourths of the pot.

Situation: There were four players left at the end of the betting. Two players declared high and low, one player declared high, and the other player declared low. The two players who declared high and low both beat the other two players' high hands and low hands. Against each other, one had the best high and the other the best low. The two players with the losing hands argued that since neither one of the players who declared both ways won them both, they disqualified each other and the losing hands should split the pot. I argued that since neither of them had a winning hand, the players who declared both should split the pot because one of them had the best high and the other had the best low, and each had a better high and low than the other two players. In all of my poker-playing days, I don't ever recall a player with a losing hand winning all or part of the pot. I hope you understand the issue, and I hope that you can give us a ruling, preferably with some examples.

I replied: "Do you play the 'back-in rule'? In other words, if A declares both ways and loses high to B but beats C for low, do you play that B and C split the pot or that B wins it all?"

My correspondent gave me the answer that I least wanted to hear. He wrote back, "I would prefer that we played that B should win the whole pot (he is the only one with a winning hand), but we play that B and C would split the pot in your example."

I replied: "I also prefer that B should win the whole pot, but have had to play the back-in rule in which B and C split. [I was playing in a juicy $100-$200 game at a Toledo country club, and it was their way or the highway.] I was hoping that you played that losing hands win zero, in which case it is 100 percent clear that the scoopers split the pot. There are no official rules of high-low declare, as there are for other games. In my whole life, I have encountered only one casino cardroom that spread the game.

"The fact is, your statement, 'In all of my poker-playing days, I don't ever recall a player with a losing hand winning all or part of the pot,' is incorrect, because it happens in your game on a regular basis. So, I cannot really make a ruling; I can just give you an opinion. I do not see how a player can back in to split a pot with another player who has not beaten anyone. You can split a pot on a back-in only with someone who has won his direction. Letting the two losers in the hand split the pot is even worse than letting someone get half who had a losing hand. So, I would prefer to have the two winners split.

"If you do not wish to use the method I suggest, it would be preferable to rule that the two players who declared both ways are not allowed to win because they failed to scoop, and the two who held hands that beat nobody cannot split the whole pot because neither one beat the scoopers. Then, you could offer the players the option of either giving the pot to the house or splitting it four ways among themselves. The whole situation should illustrate the point that it is clearly fairer to use a rule that you have to beat another player's hand to get any share of the pot. Under any circumstances, having the two losing hands split up the money of the two winning hands should be allowed only in countries that are ruled by a dictator, not in the U.S."

Now, here are some comments about the best rules to use, from the perspective of a professional poker player:

1. Using a simultaneous declare is superior to using an in-order declare (integrity protection).

2. The best low hand should be a wheel, not a 6-4. This applies especially to games in which you have only five cards, such as draw or five-card stud. The normal scoop hand is a wheel, so forcing a wheel to be a high-only hand is a dainty approach to poker that should be used only by those whose favorite form of sex is holding hands.

3. Ties by the scooper should be ties, meaning a scooper who wins one direction and ties another should get three-fourths of the pot.

4. You should not get part of the pot without a winning hand. For example, if A goes both ways, B goes high, and C goes low, when B wins, C should get zero if he cannot tie or beat A.

5. Some people like terminology that calls the scooper a "hog" or a "pig," rather than the more neutral term. They are sadists who like the scooper to lose - and laugh their tails off when an old man slips on a banana peel.

I will close with a story on weird poker plays that arise when you use stupid rules. Many years ago, I was playing in a three-way pot with rules that you needed to win (rather than tie) to scoop, and you could back in for half with no hand if someone tied or beat the scooper. One of my opponents was betting strongly, and I had a wheel. As per the "normal" strategy for the rules being used, I slow-played my hand with the intention of going low only, figuring that my strongly betting opponent also had a wheel. The third player in the pot also figured the heavy bettor for a wheel - and the tight Bob Ciaffone for knowing this and having the bettor tied. He accordingly called all the way on a busted hand and declared high; I had to split the pot with him. Had I foolishly declared both ways, he might have gotten the whole pot with no hand when the argument died down!