[TheMighty0z]

There is a group that I play poker with that gets together once or twice a year for a dealers choice poker night. They've been playing for years before I was invited (about 4 years ago). One of the games commonly called is Low Spade in the Hole (Low Chicago). Usually when this game is played the 2 of spades would be the lowest card in the hole, which would split the pot with the best hand. They have always played that the ace of spades could be played as a low card in the hole to split the pot, but that the ace could not be played both high and low in the same hand. If you played the ace of spades as a low card in the hole it could only be used as a low card in the hand. I've seen the ace of spades played as both low spade in the hole, and the low part of a straight (5-4-3-2-A) in the same hand in the past as they have chosen to play the variant of the game.

Now, I didn't invent this variation and am not asking for approval for their house game.

The problem that came up is as follows:

During our last poker night some one else called Low Spade in the Hole as the game. My hand was 9-9-A-A-x, with the ace of spades in the hole. According to the way that they have chosen to play the game I saw my hand as two pairs (nines over aces) with low spade in the hole. Since I was calling the ace as a low card in the hole they were essentially ones.

Two players were adamant that the pair of aces could not count because, and I quote: Aces are NEVER a low pair in poker. I disagreed, arguing that the ace had paired and that was not nullified by playing the ace of spades low. I had played the ace low only in the hand, just as they had specified in their house rules. The arguing players responded that their position was not a house rule, but a universal rule that aces are never low in poker. Now, they are clearly wrong to state that aces are NEVER low cards in poker (A-A is the low pair in Razz and Ace to Five Lowball, as well as playable low in Seven Card Stud Hi-Low and Omaha Hi-Low). But if there are any Low Chicago players on the forum I'd like to know what their thoughts are on this matter.

[jdunford]

I have never played that variation of Low Chicago (we always played 2-low), but I'd be on your side here. If the A can be used low to make a wheel-straight while simultaneously being the low-spade in the hole, then I can't see why you can't call your hand "9's up" with 99 over AA. But if someone else had, say "Q's up", you'd lose one half of the pot, since you'd either have to call your poker hand "A's up" to win high hand and concede the low spade, or you could play the low spade but concede the high hand (with "9's up").

Aside: I also played a fair bit of High Chicago (with A as the highest spade), but we played that the high spade in the hole and high hand were independent. For example, if you had A in the hole and made the wheel straight as your (potentially winning) high hand (with the A as low), you still qualified for both halves of the pot.

[bmwguy525]

Yeah this seems silly from the get-go. The 2 should be the lowest spade regardless. If they're saying that the A has to play low, then it still counts as a card in the deck. If it can be used in a wheel, it can be paired as can any other card in the game to create...a pair.

I think this variation/rule is nonsensical, but in accordance with it you were correct in calling your hand as 9's over A's. If they're saying that the AA doesn't count as a pair...some serious sitting out has to be done at this particular game...

[Wooderson]

I'm guessing that whoever was arguing with you had the second hand that would have won if you had not? Either that or they have one large honkin' case of myopic gottoberightis?

[TheMighty0z]

Actually Wooderson, no. That was part of the annoying thing. The player I was heads up with wasn't one of the ones claiming that my play wasn't valid.

[TenPercenter]

FYI, from my dealer's choice poker pages, posted 10 years ago (and in print years before that), and PLAYED for longer, here's how we play Low Chi.

Low Chicago PLAYERS: 4-7
INITIAL DEAL: two cards down and one up to each player PLAY: As with 7 card stud, but whoever has the lowest Spade in the hole (face down) gets half the pot. WINNER: High hand and low spade in the hole split.

That doesn't specify deuce as low, but that's how we always played. An Ace is not low unless you specify it first, or if you're playing "Big Two."


But... If you guys were playing Ace as low, I dont think it should affect your Aces as high pair. It's debatable, but if you were arguing that aces were low instead of deuces while the rest thought deuce was low... then I dont blame them for not letting you have both halves.

[TheMighty0z]

Originally Posted by TenPercenter

But... If you guys were playing Ace as low, I dont think it should affect your Aces as high pair. It's debatable, but if you were arguing that aces were low instead of deuces while the rest thought deuce was low... then I dont blame them for not letting you have both halves.

Like you said, it is debatable (thus the purpose of the thread). My main issue was that their rule insisted on playing the 'high' or 'low', and didn't really define what that mean. What impact was created by the pairing of my ace in the hand, since I was taking their option of playing the 'low'? Since I was playing it 'low' then my hand was 9's over A's, in my interpretation.

Still I think debate on this is interesting. Lets face it, most of us end up at a 'Dealers Choice' night every once in a while. And, that's where odd ball games and house rules tend to come up. What's worse, these games tend to have been going on between a group for years before a case like this arises.

[Couga]

The guy whose house you are at makes the call. Deal with whatever he says.

When we play Low games, Ace is either High or low. Just so cases like this don't come up.

- Couga

[TheMighty0z]

Yeah, and that's what I did. The stakes were low (just a few bucks in the pot), and not worth the argument that ensued over the matter. But, I still felt that my play was valid given the way that the rule was stated/previously played. I'm hoping that the next time that particular group meets this can be avoided by scrapping the Ace high or low rule, and settling on the deuce as the low spade.

[MeridianFC]

This is screaming of a rules clarification and the clarfication should be that in Low Chicago decue is low period.

BTW I hate either of the Chicago variations.