This hand was taken from the OFC Tournament on 7/19 at the Palms Casino. They are down to the Final Four players (out of 20 entrants), and the Top 2 will be paid.
Pauly is the “loquacious” player on the far left – people may know him as @WPTSEUSS on Twitter. To his left is Dan (@Nutcicles), then Jon Turner (@PearlJammed) is the guy in the middle so addicted to OFC he’s playing someone on his iPad while playing at the final table of this tournament. On the far right is Mark, I’m not sure if he has a Twitter handle, so if someone knows it, please contact me and I will edit this post. Note: FantasyLand was not in play for this tournament.
So continuing where I left out, I had completed an exhaustive analysis of the set-ups of each player (probably too exhaustive). So now we’re on to 6th street. Before we continue, let’s visualize where we’re at:
So let’s get to the run-out, which starts right around 0:47 of the video, which again is this:
Pauly: He gets the 4♣. No reason to abandon the full-house draw, and it’s a live card under his back-pair (meaning he can pair it in the middle without any fear of fouling). It has no real value up top because 4s aren’t a royalty. No real analysis is needed – snap play it in the middle, which he does.
Dan: 8♣. Given that he’s already got one spot up top, to throw another fairly dead card up there would severly hamper his ability to develop his midle and top because he’d only have one spot left up top. It also would mean he’s got 2-outs (a 7 and an 8) that would really screw his hand up because he wouldn’t want to pair them up top. So although this is a fairly dead card, it makes sense to play it in the middle, which he does.
Jon: 4♠. This is where I differ from a lot of people, Jon included. He puts it in back to pair his 4s, with the idea of going two-pair in the back, Queens or Nines in the middle and smaller pair (or Ace-High) up top. It’s not a horrible plan, but to me, and maybe I’m more gambooly than most, or maybe I’m more used to 4-handed games where you have full information and thus can see if you’re still fairly live for whatever royalty draw you set up, if you set up three to a straight, and nothing significant has changed, I don’t see why you want to abandon it so early for just a pair of 4s – it doesn’t even take the lead in back. Now Jon clearly thinks about this for a while. The angry clacking of his chips suggests that he really didn’t want to break up the draw this early, or maybe he’s just that way all the time, who knows. He then plays with the card while still trying to figure out whether to abandon or not. Perhaps he decided that seeing the pair of 2s in Mark’s hand is enough to determine that he’s no longer live enough for his straight draw – I disagree, as all 6s are live, there are still 2 2’s, and all the Aces are live, but I could see that argument as well. Or perhaps he just wants to play this hand super safe, and with 4s & 3s still entirely live, he feels he has a good chance to hit 2-pair/Trips and then with a 100% live Q in the middle he can take a commanding lead in the middle and perhaps even get a royalty pair up top (like 6s or Jacks). I personally would have put it in the middle as it’s still a fairly live card to pair in the middle, and I still want to wait a few streets for my straight draw. And if you asked Jon, he probably was evenly split as to which path to chose, or at least very close to evenly split.
Mark: T♥. Same situation here as with Jon – if I set up three to a straight I’m going to want to give it a few streets, particularly if nothing new has changed (and unlike Jon, none of the straight outs have been played since Mark set his hand). On the other hand, Mark was nowhere near as live as Jon in the back, with 7s being mostly dead, so abandoning this straight draw makes a lot more sense to me. It’s also why I wouldn’t have played the straight draw in the back initially. If he had started 229 like I would have, I would have suggested he pair the T in the middle, given how he’s still very live (he has both 2s and all 3 9s left). Given his set-up, I agree pairing the back is the right play here as I am worried about the straight draw given the scarcity of 7s. And given how quickly he played it, he probably started the hand with the mindset that he would be willing to break up the straight draw if any of his pair cards come out first. That’s a fine play heads up, but I don’t like it 4-handed as royalties become that much more valuable (a scoop of 1 player only means points from him, but a royalty gets paid by all 3 players, so a straight is worth just as much as a scoop of 1 player).
Paul: 3♦. An annoying card because it’s still fairly live, meaning that if you play it up top you may end up getting another 3 before you pair the middle, but at the same time, most players, myself included, do not like to commit a 4th card in the middle (leaving only one spot left) before playing a single card up top (again, it has to do with being able to maneuver, when you get down to one spot left in a row, your maneuverability is severely hampered). Either play is “icky”; Pauly recognizes this, hence his hesitation and visible frustration – Pauly is definitely an animated person and I will say there’s pretty much no one else who can manage to make it fun to watch him play even cards he doesn’t like (and not for schadenfreude reasons, rather just for standard enjoyment and humor).
Dan: K♦. You could argue throwing it up top and hoping that one of the four aces will come to “cover” it in the middle, but that seems foolish to me because K-high may not be that useful up top with those same aces potentially available to other players to make A-high up top. Plus, the K is live and if you throw it up top you could potentially pick up another K and then again have another tough spot. Just like the 8, this goes in the middle, which is what Dan does.
Jon: 5♦. Obviously once you’ve abandoned the straight draw in the back, which he did, it makes sense to also play this card in the back for 2-pair. If he hadn’t abandon the straight draw, it would be more interesting as the question would be whether he should still hold out for the draw, but given that he played the 4 in the back last street, this play is obvious – lock up 2 pair in the back and hope for a Q or a 9 in the middle to take the lead there.
Mark: 6♦. If he had played for the straight, this would be an absolute mess of a card as if you played it in the back you’d now have a 1-out gutshot, which can be easily described as a horrible spot to be in (particularly because you’d have Tens in the middle). With his current hand, the middle makes the most sense as it’s still a fairly live card, and you can pair it safely since you’ve got Tens in the back. If I was setting up the hand, I would throw it up top and try to pair it there for the 1pt royalty – so my hand so far would be 6/TT8/229.
So after 7th street, here’s where we’re at:
Pauly: 2♠. Another annoying card for Pauly, as now he either has to play a fairly dead card in the middle as his 4th card (drastically limiting his options for the remainder of the hand), or commit to 3-2 up top with one card to go. Further complicating the situation is that Tens are now entirely dead, there’s only one 8 left, and only one 4 left, meaning for him to pair the middle, he likely needs a live card to go in the next slot and then pair that card to close the hand out. Although the deuce does have 1 live out left, I think he did the right thing in throwing it up top, although to be quite honest, both spots suck. And in case anyone is wondering, no, playing it in the back makes no sense either, you’re still live for a full-house (albeit with only 1-outers for both the 7 & K), and throwing a 1-out left deuce doesn’t make any sense. I like playing it up top and praying for a live card, pairing the 8 or the 4, or two of the still entirely live aces (to allow me to go A-high, A-lesser-high. The one thing about the deuce up top is that you’re severely hindering any chance of scooping people by doing so, and Pauly audibly notes as such later on when he talks about how he’s got to figure out something to win the top sub-hand.
Dan: 6♣. Another very live card (at this point, having 2 pair outs left in the deck can be classified as very live, , so he’s got the same dilemna he’s had with each previous card. I agree with playing it up top, the theory being if you do pair the Jack (which is still entirely live), you can hit a pair of 8s or Ks in the middle and then 7s or 6s up top for the royalty. I can’t fault a player for wanting to play it in the middle, however, with the goal being to pair one of the live cards in the middle and then playing A-high up top (again, all four aces are left). Either way you bank on hitting a live Jack, but at some point, you’ve got to have faith that your live cards will come.
Yes, someone in the nearby sportsbook yelled Boom-Shakalaka. My guess is that he had $20 on an MLB game and someone just went yard to take the lead. And yes, as Pauly points out, that’s the first time any of us have heard that phrase since NBA Jam. I personally loved that game because Ewing was far faster in that game than he was in real life, and Ewing/Starks didn’t have nearly as much trouble with Pippen/Grant as they did with the real Bulls (which unfortunately actually included MJ). But that’s an entirely different subject, and if I continue I’ll end up going off on a tangent about how the Knicks had the Bulls beat in 1993 but freaking Charles Smith couldn’t hit a damn layup…okay, that’s another story. Back to the hand.
Jon: Q♣. Given that the whole point of abandoning the straight draw so quickly was to get 2-pair in the back and then a big pair in the middle (because your Q and 9 were very live), I hope I don’t have to analyze this play. He binks the best card in the deck for his hand – a Queen, and snap pairs it in the middle. Now he’s hoping for running Jacks or running 9s for a royalty up top.
Mark: 9♦. As played, he snap plays it in the back (it’s not like you even can try to wait for 3 of a kind, the Tens are fully dead). This is the best remaining card for his hand, it gives him Tens and Nines in the back, the highest possible remaining hand for him once he paired the Ten (since he did it with the last Ten in the deck). If he had started with my set-up, he’d have 6/TT8/2299, and someone would probably make a snarky comment about how lucky I was to pair the 9 to cover the Tens in the middle.
Pauly: A♣. I think Pauly briefly entertains the idea of playing it up top and hoping another Ace will come in the middle; it’s not a horrible play, you’d have 3 outs (any Ace), plus if you hit 2-pair in the back, you’d have the 8. However, it’s also a risky play, one that doesn’t offer much of a reward because A-high in the middle doesn’t beat 2 of the players (Jon and Mark each have a pair in the middle), and likely won’t beat Dan either (very live pair cards). You’re taking on a risk of fouling for the upside of winning 2 out of 3 from people (Top and Bottom). If the risk offered the reward of scooping players, it may be worth it, which is another reason why it can be justified in the middle – if you do complete 2 pair or Trips in the back, you are also very live for Aces in the middle, giving you a commanding lead in the middle and a very plausible chance to scoop with the best 2-pair, Aces in middle, and something up top that wins (whatever that “something” ends up being). Pauly even talks about this as he finalizes the play – he talks about how he’s going to catch another Ace (“that’ll be good”) and put it up top to jump out to the lead up top over everyone else. That’s his mindset when he plays the Ace in the middle, and it makes sense.
Dan: Q♥. The “nit” play here would be to throw it up top and lock up Q-high. But at this point, Dan’s still got all three Jacks remaining to hit 2-pair (or potentially a full house) in the back, so he sees the Q as having 1 out still left, giving him a chance to also have a pair of Queens in the middle. Given that Q-high up top may not be sufficient (again, three aces still out there), I tend to agree.
Jon: 6♥. Competing points here. On the one hand, there is one 6 left, so it’s not a bad card to play up top, as you can then pair it if you get the last 6, and end up with a 1pt royalty up top (and likely win the top from everyone). On the other hand, you need to close up the middle, because you can’t hit two-pair (Queens & anything would be better than 5s and 4s, Jon’s back hand, thereby meaning he fouls), so in this case, playing a card with only 1-out isn’t as ideal as playing a completely dead card, but at the same time it’s still one more card to completing the middle as just a Pair of Queens. Further, 6s up top isn’t “that” great, there are still 3 Jacks left, so aiming for 6s comes at the cost of having less room to aim for Jacks. I agree throwing it in the middle is the right play, but he better pray he doesn’t hit the case 6.
Mark: 7♦. That’s a comical card. Mark knows it too, he knows that had he followed through on the straight draw and set up for a 1-out gut-shot, it would have hit, miraclously. But with his current set-up, it makes sense to go up top – he’s got more room (3 open slots in the top versus only 2 in the middle) up top and it’s an entirely dead card at this point, no chance of getting another 7. Under my initial set-up, this would go in the middle since it’s entirely dead and has no value to me as 7-high (I already have 6-high), so my hand would be 6/TT87/2299. Side-note: This is also the 5th diamond, so had he set up Diamonds in the back he’d complete the flush and have 4 cards to come to develop the middle and top. This game is a lot easier when played with hindsight.
Paul: K♥. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Pauly play a card faster in my life. And I also don’t think I need to waste any more words. Jenga-card for him, gives him two pair in the back, and we’ll move on. Also, poor Pauly laments Mark taking up the last 7, severely limiting his ability to hit a full house.
Dan: 8♠. A classic example of having to trust in your live cards. Here, breaking up the boat draw when all 3 jacks are STILL live is foolish, and giving up the top by playing the 8 there for 8-high is equally foolish. Pair the middle, and just hope a Jack comes. There are 3 of them left. You are 55% to hit a Jack at this point (not to mention you can still go running Aces as well). Yeah, it’s a gamble, but the other alternatives suck. Risk the foul and just have faith your live cards will come. Dan sees it the same way I do.
Jon: J♦. This is pretty much the best card for his hand – now he’s got two outs to a 6pt Royalty up top. Easiest. Play. Ever.
Mark: 4♦. It’s a dead card. Outside of running 3s, there’s no way for Mark to improve his middle without “jumping” his back and fouling his hand. So he’s pretty much stuck at Tens Up in the Back, and 2s in the middle. You’ve got two free spots in both the middle and the top, but you also do have to consider that there is one Deuce left in the deck, and that CANNOT go in the middle, so all else equal, you’d rather save your top spots in case you hit a 2. Since there’s really no other value to this card in any way shape or form, it’s going to be a dead spot no matter where you play it, the aforementioned point of keeping the top open as much as possible in case you hit a 2 means that the “right” play is to play it in the middle, but that’s only because there’s simply no other reason to play it in either spot, as either way it’s a dead card and an empty slot. Interestingly enough, in my other set-up, I’d want to play it up top because I don’t want to close out my middle entirely with 2 Jacks and 3 Aces out there to potentially go runner-runner up top to foul (since I only have Tens in the middle, so Jacks or Aces up top would foul me). So I’d have 64/TT87/2299. Also, just to taunt Mark further, he got his 6th Diamond. Techincally he could have just put the 8 of Diamonds in the back with Deuces in the middle and still run out a flush (not exactly an advisable play, but just humorous to think about).
We’ve now finished 10th street, so let’s take a look at the hands:
Dan’s got the riskiest hand, but also has the best “best-case scenario” (6s/8s/Boat) and also a very good “pretty good scenario” – A-high/8s/Jacks Up probably scoops two players and wins 2 out of 3 from Jon. It just goes to show you how much variance there is – he could easily end up scooping two players, he also has a shot at a full house in the back, but at the same time, if he doesn’t hit one of the two remaining jacks he fouls his hand. Pauly’s got a good set-up if he can get another Ace. Paul, Jon and Mark each have an “ugly” card – a 3 for Paul, a Q for Jon, and a 2 for Mark; each of these cards “has” to go in a slot because it would foul their hand to play it in the other spot.
Pauly: 3♥. I swear I didn’t write the previous paragraph knowing that he’d hit a 3 here. But it’s funny that he does hit the one card that messes his entire hand up. It’s also funny because his scream of agony can’t even be described adequately – if anyone can describe it please let me and Pauly (@WPTSEUSS) know. It’s both incredibly painful and incredibly beautiful to listen to. Over and over. Start at 2:26 and enjoy. Also, Pauly – kudos on the Rage Against the Machine reference, even if you’re using it entirely out of context (I don’t think the band ever wanted their name to stand for the rage one has that you hit the one card in the deck that kills your hand’s potential).
He can play the 3 up top and gamble for one of the 2 remaining aces – if he does hit one of them, he’ll likely scoop everyone with 3s/Aces/Kings Up (Jon is the only question as he can still play Jacks up top); given that he’s 45% to do so, it’s certainly an arguable play. On the other hand, that’s the only way he can cover, as the other cards he has in the middle are all dead. He’s not getting scooped by either Jon or Mark as it currently stands, so if he plays it in the middle and gives up (playing A-high in the middle), even if he also ends up with a losing top hand, he’s at worst only losing 3 points unless Jon hits a Jack for a royalty or Dan goes runner-runner Jacks for a boat. I have a gambling problem so I may go for the scoop here, but it’s certainly quite reasonable to give up the middle because you’re not being scooped anywhere, and if you don’t hit your Ace, you’re going to foul and payout a lot more than if you played the safe way. It’s the classic risk v. reward – gamble or play it safe. I think Pauly would agree that if this was a royalty pair, such as Jacks, he’d gamble for it with 2 Aces left, but 3s on their own just probably aren’t worth it, even if it’s a likely scoop.
Dan: 3♠. Well this card sucks. You can’t play it in the back because it’s dead and doesn’t do anything to help you there, it actually kills your small chance at a full house in the back, and you need a Jack at this point (plus it destroys the potential runner-runner Aces in the back as the other way to not foul). But up top you’ve now got 7-high, which is pretty much guaranteed to finish last up top. Ugh. Dan knows this card sucks, hence why he’s visibly annoyed at drawing this card given that there are Aces still out there, a 6 still out there, two Jacks still out there, and he ends up with the nut-low card for his hand. But he has to just grit it and play it up top for the monster 7-high. Gotta love Pauly’s needle about being able to beat 7-high (which comes on the next street). Oh wait, “The 7-high”. Apparently 7-high is worth giving itself a full title.
Jon: A♥. I will admit this play seemed quite peculiar to me at first, because I’d normally think you snap play this up top and take a commanding lead of the top hands from everyone else with A-J high. But thankfully Jon doesn’t do that, because he realizes that doing so opens up a whole host of potential backdoor fouls – there’s still a Queen left (which can’t go in the middle for Trips), there’s still a 6 left (which also can’t go in the middle for a better 2 pair than his back), and an Ace left (which can’t go up top since Aces > Queens). So if he plays the Ace up top, he’s now got 3 cards out of 9 remaining that HAVE to be played in the other spot, and if he gets one of them, let’s say the 6, which he has to play up top, then he still needs to avoid the final Queen not to foul. And if he hits his Jack next, he still has to be afraid of the Q/6 foul combination. On the other hand, while wasting the strength of being an Ace, playing it in the middle and locking up Queens guarantees the only way he can foul is to go runner-runner Jacks up top, he still can get just one Jack for the royalty and kill everyone point wise, and he still has one more Ace to play up top. So while I would have played the Ace up top without thinking about it, Jon’s more measured approach clearly works out as he makes the better play by playing it in the middle. I would have absolutely rushed to play the card up top and made the mistake – it’s not a huge mistake, but it does leave the door open much wider for a potential backdoor foul.
Mark: 2♣. Well that’s the card he has to avoid, and why he kept 2 spots open up top. Throw it in an empty slot up top, and now you’ve got a free spot in both middle and top to maneuver based on what comes next; it’s actually a good thing to get rid of the only painful card now so there’s no risk of a backdoor foul anymore. Also, had he played it my way, this would be his full house card. 64/TT87/22992.
Pauly: 9♥. Before he peels the card, he knows he’s looking for one of the remaining Aces or other high cards to go up top (so he can keep his full house draw in-tact). I don’t think he was envisioning a 9 as “something to go up top”, but as he points out, 9-high does beat Dan’s 7-high, so he blocks the scoop there, and he’s already blocked the scoop from the other two players. Given that there’s no way he can scoop anyone (as all 3 players have pairs in the middle), there’s no reason to abandon the potential full house in the back (1 king left for it), so throw it up top and rejoice that 9-high is not the worst hand, which is exactly what Pauly does. And once again, Pauly with a description that only he would come up with – “I guess that’s up top for today. Don’t try this at home kiddies”
Dan: J♣. Sometimes you just have to have faith in your live cards. Binks the Jack, snap play it in the back and now hope you pick up the last one for the boat. Pauly’s attempts at a needle “Oh you got out of jail” can be shrugged off, because Dan knew he had live jacks, and he had faith that they would come. And Pauly quickly also realizes that Dan may be live for a full house, and Dan answers Pauly’s question by affirming that he is live. Spoiler Alert: Dan misses the full house – I only say that because I wish he had hit it, if for no other reason than Pauly would have said something truly poetic afterwards.
Jon: Q♠: And that’s why he played the Ace in the middle – because if he played it up top, he’d now HAVE to play the Queen up top, which kills his chance at Jacks up top for the royalty, and also exposes his hand to a backdoor foul with a 6 on 13th street for two pair in the middle. Instead, it goes up top, he still has a shot at Jacks up top, and he can’t foul his hand now. Had he played it my way, he’d now be sweating a potential foul card on the river instead of sweating a potential 6pt royalty.
Mark: A♦. The main value of playing 2s in the middle is so you can comfortably play an Ace up top. Yes, I’m sure Mark didn’t expect to have to wait until 12th street, but he still can play the A up top and now ensure he wins the top hand against two of the 3 players (Dan and Pauly) who already have locked up 9-high and 7-high respectively. As for what to do if it was my hand, you could either play it up top and lock up a hand that scoops both Pauly and Dan (unless they boat up themselves), or you can shoot for the 1-pt royalty. I probably play it up top. A64/TT87/22992.
And that brings us to 13th Street…
Both Jon and Dan would get a 6pt royatly with the case Jack. Pauly could get a 6pt royalty with the case King. Also, the case Ace could give Jon a 2 out of 3 (as opposed to 1 out of 3) against Mark. Lots of potential!
Pauly: 6♠. Fail. No full house. Further, it’s not a Jack, meaning that there’s now a 66% chance that Pauly will have to payout a 6pt royalty to someone. Hence why he starts chanting “No Jack” as both Dan and Jon peel their cards.
Dan: K♥ Fail. No full house.
Jon: A♠. Fail. No Jacks up Top. Does switch his result to 2 out of 3 from Mark as opposed to losing 2 out of 3. And note that he did hit one of the cards he was worried about when he closed up Queens three streets ago. Pauly’s sigh of relief can be heard throughout the poker room.
Mark: J♣. Had he played it my way, he’d have A64/TT87J/22992. Granted, you can say I’m only saying that because of hindsight, but again, the 2s were live and the 9 would have been the highest live card (since there were 2 Tens out, but only 1 9 and 1 8). If you want to say I would have gone 228 in the back, then the hand would have run out A74/TT99J/22862 or something along those lines. Or if I would have waited for the first fully live card to come after the initial set-up, that would have been the 6, leading me to A74/TT998/2262J. So even if you want to say that “my way” wouldn’t have actually gotten a full house, it is worth noting that had he played deuces in the back, he would have ended up with at least trips, and potentially a full house. However, his play would have been very risky because he would have paired the Tens in the middle before covering it in the back, and just like we saw Dan have to sweat out covering 8s in the middle, Mark would have had to take the risk that he hits another 2 or a 9 (or whatever his kicker in the back would be alongside the deuces). But as the saying goes, “No Gambol, No Future”.
Also, although this is blatantly using hindsight, he would have hit his flush had he set up with the two diamonds in the back.
It just goes to show you how complex Open Face Chinese hands can be, particularly 4-handed, and how different set-ups can lead to drastically different results. Mark didn’t play the hand “bad”, he just took a set-up that involved far less risk, but offered far less reward. This run-out, it would have been more profitable to take the riskier line. But if he didn’t hit a Deuce or a 9, he would have fouled and had to pay out 18 points instead of just 1. You can compare the different plays to what happened in Jon’s hand – the one play I really did not like, abandoning his straight draw when it was still fairly live, ended up being a very good play. Had he tried to hold out for a straight, he never gets there, and ends up fouling. That’s the flip side of playing the riskier line and hoping the live cards will come – if they do, you end up with a big hand with a royalty, as I would have had with Mark’s hand, but if they don’t come, you end up having to salvage something or potentially fouling, as I would have done had Jon not abandoned the straight draw as early as he did.
I’ve played with both Mark and Jon many times, and they’re both very good players. Depending on if I’m feeling boastful or humble, I would describe them as either on par with me, or better than me. They definitely fall somewhere in that line. They both took reasonable lines, and the plays made sense. I just would have played it differently, and one hand I would have run-out a monster that scooped everyone, and another I would have fouled. Higher Risk, Higher Reward. Some cultures use the phrase “No Gambol, No Future”, others “No Guts, No Glory”. I personally prefer Latin because it makes me sound much smarter than I actually am: “audentes fortuna iuvat”, or as many know it, “Fortune favors the bold”. But then again, sometimes the counter holds true – “He’s got more guts than brains”.
So let’s finish up. The final hands look like this:
|Bottom||K♣||7♣||7♥||K♠||6♠||Kings & Sevens|
|Middle||T♦||8♣||K♦||Q♥||8♠||Pair of Eights|
|Bottom||J♥||5♣||5♠||J♣||K♥||Jacks & Fives|
|Jon (Seat 3)||Top||J♦||Q♠||A♠||Ace-Queen High|
|Middle||Q♦||9♠||Q♣||6♥||A♥||Pair of Queens|
|Bottom||5♥||4♥||3♣||4♠||5♦||Fives & Fours|
|Mark (Seat 4)||Top||7♦||2♣||A♦||Ace-Seven High|
|Middle||2♦||2♥||6♣||4♣||J♠||Pair of Twos|
|Bottom||T♣||9♣||8♦||T♥||9♦||Tens and Nines|
Pauly wins 2 out of 3 from Dan (Pauly wins Top and Bottom), so Dan owes Pauly 1 point.
Pauly loses 2 out of 3 to Jon (Jon wins Top and Middle), so Pauly owes Jon 1 point.
Pauly loses 2 out of 3 to Mark (Mark wins Top and Middle), so Pauly owes Mark 1 point. Pauly loses 1 point in total.
Dan loses 2 out of 3 to Jon (Jon wins Top and Middle), so Dan owes Jon 1 point.
Dan wins 2 out of 3 from Mark (Dan wins Middle and Bottom), so Mark owes Dan 1 point. Dan loses 1 point in total.
Jon wins 2 out of 3 from Mark (Jon wins Top and Middle), so Mark owes Jon 1 point. Jon wins 3 points in total.
Mark loses 1 point in total.
So, all that, and three players lose a whopping 1 point, and Jon, the big winner, nets 3 points. With no royalties and no scooping, the payouts are fairly tame. And I do find it comical that I managed to film the one hand where there wasn’t a single foul, a single scoop, or a single royalty. However, the hand did certainly illustrate how complex a 4-handed OFC hand can be, and also how there are still many different ways to play hands and lots of spots where there are multiple plays that can be labeled “correct”.
Thank you for reading this, or skimming it after also reading the cliff notes version. I plan to do a lot more of these. If you have any suggestions on how to improve my analysis or possibly how I presented it (perhaps there’s a better way to organize the sections or an easier way to illustrate what’s going on), please feel free to e-mail me. Also, any comments or thoughts on my analysis, whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to either leave it as a comment or e-mail it to me, I didn’t start this blog just for me – I love discussing Open Face so feel free to leave any comments. Thank you.