OFC Complete Hand Video #3 – Pineapple Action!

So for my third OFC video, I wanted to showcase the Pineapple variant of Open Face Chinese. A quick refresher – Pineapple is a 2 or 3-person version of OFC where, after playing the initial 5 the same way as normal OFC, each player is dealt 3 cards instead of 1 on each street and starting with UTG, each player plays 2 of the 3, and discards the 3rd face down. Since each street involves playing 2 cards, there are only 4 streets during the run-out as opposed to 8. And since each player ends up seeing 17 cards, there will be 1 card left over, and obviously the maximum number of players is 3.

FantasyLand rules are a little bit different – a player in FantasyLand receives 14 cards, not 13, and discards 1 while playing the other 13 as normal. Also, a Full House in the Middle does not entitle one to stay in FantasyLand. Finally, due to the fact that it is much easier to successfully play QQ up top in Pineapple-OFC, some people switched the minimum threshold to enter FantasyLand to KK up top. And still others, including myself, believe that is still too easy given how strong hands are in Pineapple-OFC, and believe the best rule for FantasyLand is to set the minimum at AA+. And some people still prefer the rules to stay at QQ+, and just accept that Pineapple-OFC features a lot more FantasyLand hands. Also, I think one possible rule could be that QQ entitles you to a 13-card FantasyLand (the same as normal Open Face), but KK entitles you to a 14-card hand, and AA+ entitles you to a 15-card FantasyLand (discarding 2 cards).

The video that I am going to analyze comes from MGM Grand, where a good friend of mine named Martin, my wife, and I were waiting for the fourth player to arrive for a $5/pt normal OFC game that we had set-up. So, in the meantime, the three of us were playing $3/pt pineapple (due to the much heavier swings and variance caused by the much bigger hands and royalties made in the Pineapple variation, I highly recommend playing for much smaller stakes at OFC-Pineapple as compared to whatever one normally plays for in standard OFC). We had agreed to make AA+ the minimum for FantasyLand. I’m first to act, then my wife, then Martin. So without further ado:

I’m going to try a different format for analyzing and breaking down the hand. Open Face Odds (www.openfaceodds.com) has a page called “The Sandbox”, that allows a person to move cards around amongst the 13 slots for each of 4 sub-hands, and also now has a space for comments. So, what I will do is for each player’s move, add their cards to a running picture of the entire hand, and then use the comment section on the right hand side as the place where my individual thoughts on the play in question will be displayed. This will make the actual post on this blog much shorter and more manageable. Please let me know what you guys think about doing the video analysis this way. And again, thank you to Open Face Odds for allowing me to use the Sandbox webpage and take screenshots. Also, remember that I will know my OWN discards, but not what the other two players have discarded, so any attempts to analyze their play comes with the understanding that they have knowledge and information that I am not privy to that may have fundamentally altered how they (or I) would approach the play in question.

As always, all comments and suggestions are welcome. Hope you guys enjoy it.

The Deal: I go first and get a nice 3-club combination. Allison picks up a potential Flush/Flush spot (and in Pineapple-OFC, Flush/Flush happens frequently enough that it’s vital to not ignore such possibilities), and Martin plays two-pair rather conservatively.

The First Pull: I get no help at all, but do throw an Ace up top and there are no other Aces out there. FantasyLand has become a possibility. Allison gets a nasty comnbination that turns her hand into a very high-risk, high-reward hand – flush/straight/big pair is entirely plausible, as is bricking out everything and fouling or playing pair/K-high/K-high. Martin’s hand gets even stronger. Also, yes, for some reason Martin’s 6 of Diamonds vanished from the picture intended to be my first play.

The Second Pull: Well, I don’t have much else going for me at this point – if I don’t pull the trigger and go for glory, I could easily end up with pair/pair/A-high, and that’s rarely good enough in Pineapple. So, no guts, no glory. At least it gets to be exciting – let’s see if I get there. Allison slowly inches towards making her hand, but is beginning to run out of time. Martin makes his boat in the back, and is live for a full house in the middle, and also running Aces up top for FantasyLand if he picks up a second pair in the middle.

The Third Pull: Well I abandon my flush draw, and turn my back hand into a draw to 2 big pair or Trips, and I get a key card (a 3) giving me two small pair in the middle to cover my Aces up top. Now it’s down to getting a T, 9 or 5. There are a bunch of those left – one T, one 9, and 3 5’s! Allison finishes her straight, picks up a 4th spade so she’s got her own monster or foul potential hand here, and Martin finally has a round where he doesn’t improve – and given what else has been played, his hand is pretty much set in stone at this point.

Ending: Do I make it? Does Allison make it? Or do we both foul, giving Martin a nice 12-point hand (6 for scoop,  6 for the full house)…I won’t tell you here!

Conclusion: Allison fouls, Martin has Boat/66/9-high….and I bink a 5 to make my hand legal, which means one key thing – I’m going to the Land! Points: I scoop Allison (she fouls), and I get a 9 point royalty, so +15. I win 2 out of 3 from Martin (his full house beats my two pair in the back) and have a 9 point royalty, but he has a 6 point royalty, so in total he owes me 4 points. Martin gets 12 points from Allison’s foul (scoop + full house royalty).

Yes, I am enough of a jackass to put up a video of me making FantasyLand while taking my wife to the cleaners in Open Face Chinese, as she fouls at the same time. I’ll probably be on the couch for a month, but let’s be honest, it’s worth it.

Personal Thoughts on OFC Royalties Part III – Why Middle Trips Should Get Nothing

As the title indicated, it is my contention that the optimal royalty structure would have Trips in the Middle Sub-Hand not be worth any points. They would get nothing – Good Day Sir! (Props to anyone who gets the reference).

A lot of people freak out when I mention this – for whatever reason, Middle Trips have somehow become a beloved feature of Open Face Chinese, despite the fact that as far as I know, the rule only came about in March or April of this year. I personally remember playing at Venetian without Middle Trips as a Royalty in February, and then at some point in late March, someone said that people have begun playing Middle Trips being worth 2 points to try to give the Middle more weight/value, and somehow the rule stuck. The reason I mention the rule’s short history is so people can understand this rule is not some bedrock principle of Open Face Chinese – I’m not reinventing the wheel by advocating for it’s removal. Heck, when Jason Mercier and Friends first tweeted out the improved royalties after the PCA (switching Quads from 8 to 10, SF from 10 to 15 and RF from 15 to 25, and double in the middle), they did not include such a rule, so it’s not even something that was attached to that rule change. Someone just thought of it one day and it stuck.

The reason why it stuck is most likely because people feel that the middle hand is neglected and does not have enough importance – Straights and higher are very hard to come by in the Middle, so people felt that a small bonus for Trips would make the Middle Hand carry more weight. Although I agree with the sentiment of wanting to make the middle hand more important, having a Trips Royalty was a horrible way to do it.

First, from the perspective of a Rules-Obsessed Lawyer Geek, having Trips in the Middle being worth 2 completely destroys the simple and clean royalty structure where the Middle Royalties are simply double whatever the back is. Having the Middle simply be double the Back makes the rules a lot shorter, simpler, and “cleaner”; it allows, for example, for me to say – “Royalties are Straight 2, Flush 4, Boat 6, Quads 10, SF 15, Royal 25 in Back, Double in the Middle, and up top, 6s are 1 point, 7s are 2 points, 8s are 3 points, and so forth until Aces are 9 points, and all trips are 20”. That’s the entire rule set. Adding trips in the middle fucks that up (pardon my language, but it’s entirely appropriate here). That was why Venetian tried to adopt Trips in the back as a 1 point royalty (a rule I supported) – it kept the incredibly easy and clean rule set where the Middle royalties were simply double what the Back royalties were. So from that perspective, Trips in the Middle are annoying because they screw up what was otherwise a perfectly simplistic royalty structure that was easy to describe and follow along with.

But, if it was a good rule for game-play, then I would be okay with the rule even though it messed with the beauty of how simple the royalty set-up was, because game-play is more important than being happy with how simple the rule-set is. The problem is that it’s not – the rule is also a bad rule from the perspective of what is the optimal game-play royalty rule.

The reason it’s bad is that Trips as a royalty does not accomplish the goals behind why royalties exist. One does not “go” for Trips in the middle – it is something you stumble onto once you have a made back sub-hand. Yeah, I will admit that occasionally, one plays Trips in the Middle when you are still drawing to a Flush or Straight in the back, but you would also do the same thing with Two Pair in the Middle (and odds are you made the play hoping to shoot for FantasyLand, not for the 2 point royalty). The point is, Trips come when you have a pair in the middle and you luck into the Three of a Kind card, and you either have a made hand in the back or have a very live draw. At no point did you decide to “shoot” for trips – you were shooting for pairs in the middle and stumbled onto Trips, and at no point did you decide to take on some amount of risk of fouling or making a very bad hand in order to be awarded the 2 point royalty if you are successful. Straights and Flushes in the middle require one to “shoot” for the hand, often times risking having a bigger top than middle (for example, you have a flush in back, and 765 in middle, and you get a J, if you want to go for the straight, you risk fouling if you put the J up top if you don’t improve the middle – a run out of 932 leaves you on 13th street needing to hit a card). And if you don’t hit the straight, even if you don’t foul, you also typically will end up with just one pair or Ace high in the middle – in the aforementioned example, if you pick up a 4 and are now open ended, then you get a K so it goes up top, now if your straight draw outs die out, you’re looking at a pair of 7s at best, and possibly A-7 high in order to simply not foul.

Of course, that is the risk one takes when you decide to go for a straight in the middle as opposed to looking to pair your live middle cards. The point is that one does not decide to go for trips – you either go for the straight/flush in the middle, or you look to pair your live cards (and most likely, try to 2-pair/trips so you can shoot for FantasyLand). That is why Trips shouldn’t be worth anything – you don’t “earn” the royalty.

This concept was what I discussed in the introduction post, and why I stressed it so much – royalties are not simply bonuses for big hands – they exist to encourage “shooting” for the big hands while incurring the associated risk inherent in shooting for said hands. Trips does not encourage shooting, nor does it incur any risk. It is simply something one stumbles onto as a nice bonus for a big hand. That is why it makes no sense as a rule. You don’t earn the royalty, you don’t incur any risk.

I understand the desire to make the middle hand more important. However, first, Trips as a 2 pt royalty came about right around the same time FantasyLand did – and I believe the Middle’s importance in making FantasyLand by itself puts an incredibe amount of importance in the middle (I can think of no better example of how trips don’t matter than pointing out that someone playing trips in the middle before finishing a made hand in the back is not doing it for the 2 pt royalty, rather they’re probably doing it to shoot for FantasyLand), combined with boosting the royalties for Straights/Flushes/Full Houses in the middle sufficiently accomplish the goal of putting a significant amount of value and emphasis on having a strong middle sub-hand.

That Said, I know that a lot of people do like trips in the middle – so I want to know everyone’s thoughts. I’ve Created a Poll – please feel free to add your own thoughts in the comments section in addition to Voting.

OFC Tournaments Reviewed – Part I (Overview, Golden Nugget Review)

We now have had 4 Live OFC Tournaments completed in Vegas, so I feel comfortable writing a review of all of the tournaments and commenting on what worked and what did not. (Note: I actually believe it has been 5, but I don’t know anyone who played in Binion’s OFC Tournament so I don’t have any information on it).

First, a quick review of each tournament:

Golden Nugget – 6/29 – Entrants: 100 – Here were the Tournament’s Rules:

The first thing to say about this tournament is that they made some questionable changes to the scoring system that would be used, ostensibly to “speed up the tournament”, but neither of them had much of an impact except to cause confusion amongst players not used to them. First, they used the “Royalties Trumping” rule, which meant that if I had a flush in the back, and my opponent had a higher flush in the back, I paid him a 4-pt royalty (they did not cancel). If I had a Flush and he had a Full House, I paid him the full 6pts, I got nothing (although I would still get paid for my flush from other players). The royalties only trumped each other for that sub-hand; if I had Sixes up top and he had a Straight in the back, he got a net of 1pt; 2 for his straight, -1 for my 6s.

In theory this was supposed to speed up the eliminations, but in actuality, first it slowed down the payouts because players often had to double or triple check the payouts to make sure it was correct (the dealers were not particularly helpful in this regard), second, the increasing chips-per-point levels were far more of a factor than any royalty-trumping rule in speeding up the eliminations – the chip leader fouled three straight hands when the levels went to 3,000/pt, and essentially lost all his chips and was out the door 2 hands later – royalties didn’t play any part in that.

Now, a friend of mine who plays higher stakes OFC games actually believes that Royalties Trumping is a better rule for the game overall. That is certainly an arguable point. My wife believes the exact opposite, arguing that it limits your ability to mitigate the damage from an opponent’s monster. That is certainly an interesting question. But GN did not introduce this rule because they felt it was better for the game overall. They introduced it to “speed up eliminations”, and in that regard, the rule did not accomplish the goal. The confusion and errors caused by introducing such a rule far outweighed the negligible advantage of “speeding up eliminations”.

The second rule change they made was even more ridiculous, because there was seemingly no reason at all for the change. They changed the top hand royalties to 66-TT: 1pt, JJ-AA: 5pts, Trips: 20 pts. I have no idea why they did this. It made Jacks a HUGE hand to shoot for – it’s the easiest 5pt hand to cover in terms of having a bigger pair in the middle and then two pair, trips or a royalty in the back, and my two biggest payouts came when I had Jacks up top. I don’t know why they adopted that rule, no one thought it made sense, it added more confusion, and dramatically limited the power of the top hand – pairs like 8s/9s/Ts only got 1pt so there was not a lot of value in going for them, similarly, QQ/KK/AA also did not payout appropriately. Royalties trumping at least could be defended as either improving the game or as an attempt to speed up eliminations – changing the top hand royalties to 1pt for 6s-Ts, 5pts for JJ-AA just was bizarre.

In terms of the actual tournament, the one major flaw in how they ran the tournament was that they did NOTHING to keep tables at the same level. Now, in normal poker tournaments, blinds go up according to a clock – yes, some tables play more hands than others but the differences are negligible. In Open Face, one table can play 4 hands before another table finishes 1; the rate of play varies drastically. Having levels go up on a clock would simply be ludicrous. So instead, what directors have decided to do is have the level-up process be tied to a set number of hands. Later tournaments switched to 8 hands per level, but Golden Nugget decided to do 4 hands per level. This itself was not the issue. The issue, however, was that nothing was done to ensure that one table would not be drastically ahead of another table in terms of what level they were on – it was possible for one table to be at the 1200/pt Level and another to be at the 700/pt Level; this happened when one table broke and the player was sent to my table – he had come from a table playing at 1200/pt, and now dropped to 700/pt (4 level drop). Similarly, when my table broke at the 1500/pt level, I was set to a table playing 3000/pt (a 3 level jump).

Clearly “something” had to be done to ensure that tables were at similar levels. Aria heard about what happened at Golden Nugget, and put in place a rule that over-corrected the problem, but that is something I will get to in Part II.

Now, the Golden Nugget tournament was still fun. It was only a $130 buy-in, so ultimately a lot of the players, myself included, had a good chuckle at the absurdity of the above-noted problems, and still just had a fun time playing Open Face Chinese in a Tournament structure. The floormen did a mostly good job breaking 3-handed tables – although there was a minor problem in that that they were instructed by the director to break from the outer-numbers in ONLY (so if you were at Table #1, which was also set to be the final table, you weren’t going to move unless you were eliminated); this did lead to the occasional silliness of a low-numbered table playing 2-handed (Which happened to my wife, who was at Table #3 and at numerous points had only 2 players, they refused to break her table because it was slated to be one of the last tables left).

An area that I feel Golden Nugget did a good job in was making sure the dealers at least ensured payouts were correct. Most of the dealers did not know OFC very well, and did not feel comfortable trying to score each player’s hand. However, all but one of the dealers I had (and my friends all agreed that their dealers acted similarly) were very good in letting all four players all agree which players owe points to other players, and then once it has been agreed Player A owes Player B 7 points, the dealer then makes sure that Player A paid Player B the appropriate amount of chips, based on the agreement that it was 7 points worth. The dealers may not have known how people came to the conclusion that A owed B 7 points, but they were very good about making sure that A paid B 21,0000 in chips if it was the 3,000/pt level. They also were very good about making sure the short-stack rules were enforced correctly (I will discuss short-stack rules later on). Sure, it would have been nice if every Dealer would know OFC well enough to score the hands as well, but I give credit to GN for acknowledging that some of the dealers had absolutely no clue on OFC scoring, and instead of trying to crash-course them on scoring and potentially having slow-downs and mistakes, rather, have the dealers focus on something that doesn’t require knowing all the OFC rules – ensuring proper payouts once the hands have been scored by the players (and only if there was a disagreement in scoring would they then have to really involve themselves).

Finally, I have no clue why GN did not take advantage of having extra dealers and extra empty tables to try to run OFC cash games during the tournament. Many players asked about cash games and the floormen kept answering “That’s next” or “Yeah I’ll get right on it”, without ever actually attempting to do so. This was simply a wasted opportunity for GN to make money; I saw many players who had busted playing friends on the App while watching their other friend still compete in the tournament.

Finally, here are a few pictures from the tournament:

Personal Thoughts on OFC Royalties Part II – The Actual Proposal

Back Sub-Hand:

Straight 2, Flush 4, Full House 6, Quads 10, Straight Flush 15, Royal Flush 25

Middle Sub-Hand:

NO BONUS FOR TRIPS, Straight 5, Flush 10, Full House 15, Quads 20, Straight Flush 30, Royal Flush 50.

Top Sub-Hand:

Pair of Twos to Sixes: 1 pt, Sevens 2, Eights 3, Nines 4, Tens 5, Jacks 6, Queens 7, Kings 9, Aces 13, Trips 20.

Fantasyland at QQ+ up top, with a 14-card fantasy land for AA or Trips. For 4-player games, I do acknowledge this requires either shuffling a card back into the deck or somehow the discarded card being played on a certain street, and would welcome suggestions on how to best make that work while still allowing the new standard of “player sets his FL away from the table” to be the way FL is played.

Shoot The Moon: 20 Point Royalty + you do not payout any points for being scooped (or losing 2 out of 3), if you successfully play Q-high or worse in the back and 8-high in the middle.

In the next few days I will be writing posts that address each of the proposed changes – the 0 pts for trips in the middle, the increased bonuses for Straight/Flush, the increased bonuses for middle hands in general, the small pair up top bonus, the increased bonus for Kings and Aces, and the shoot the moon bonus.

Personal Thoughts on OFC Royalties Part I – Overview

I’ve often been asked what Royalty system I think is best – and since I happen to be addicted to the game, I often ponder the question myself even without being prompted to do so. First, it must be stressed that there is no “right” answer. There may be an industry standard, but there is certainly no “right” answer; just like how the the NBA uses 4 12-minute quarters and College Basketball is 2 20-minute halves, what royalties one consider “best” come down to personal beliefs as to what best balances the competing interests.

What, exactly, are those interests? There are three core elements of the game – properly setting a hand (not fouling), having relatively better sub-hands than one’s opponents, and making royalties. If we didn’t have royalties, then there would be no incentive to go for a big sub-hand once you have guaranteed yourself a relatively stronger sub-hand than your opponent; if three of a kind on its own is good enough in the back, there is no reason to go for a full house, thereby turning the last two spots in the back into throwaway cards. Although such a game would be interesting in the abstract, it likely would become boring fairly quickly. That is why Royalties are so important – they add a significant incentive to go for a big hand, even at risk of fouling, and thereby increase the overall complexity and excitement to the game. However, the bonuses do not simply exist to add excitement; this key concept appears lost on a lot of people. It is certainly true that one of the big reasons that the game has become so popular is the bonuses for big sub-hands that one gets, however, this does not mean that the royalties should be viewed simply as a way to make the game exciting; the royalties exist to offer incentives to aim for big hands – the fact that they make the game exciting and fun to play arises out of that principle.

Therefore, since royalties exist to provide incentive to go for big hands – the most optimal royalty structure is one that structures the payouts proportional to the risk one takes (either of fouling or of not having good sub-hands in the other two rows) in going for such a hand. The only caveat is that the reward cannot be so great as to warp gameplay as to make the game ONLY about such a bonus. To borrow an example from sports, if the NBA awarded 10-points for shots from beyond the arc, the result would be too much emphasis on shooting jumpers from beyond the arc, if one gave a bonus of 100 points for Quads in the back, people would treat the front and middle sub-hands as nothing more than 8 throwaway spots to put cards that didn’t help them have quads in the back. To continue with the example, the compromise the NBA reached was that they rewarded long-range jumpers with one additional point – to the league, this was enough of an incentive to be worth the added risk of a higher percentage of missed shots, without offering such a huge incentive as to turn the game into nothing but shooting shots from beyond the arc.

Now, for the truly rare royalties – the ones that require a very specific set of circumstances to even contemplate “going for it” in the first place (a Royal Flush in the back would be the best example) the aforementioned problem is not a huge issue. It’s impossible to turn the game into a “Going for the Royal Flush competition”.

However, a secondary problem emerges – namely, that if the payout is so massive for such a hand in an attempt to reflect the rarity of both the circumstances and the successful completion, the occassional “blind luck stumble” into such a hand creates such a massive swing that it can essentially destroy one player’s massive point-lead built over many hands. Yes, luck in theory evens out, so this is not a paticularly big issue – over time, both players will have the same “blind luck stumble” into a hand so the swings will even out, but going back to the NBA example, would people really find it fair if there was a rule that awarded 25 points for a 3/4rs-court length shot (to encourage trying such extremely tough shots), and then a team that has thoroughly outplayed for an entirely game and is down 25 oints with 30 seconds to go, launch one full court hail-mary, sink it, tie the game up? Even though the rules were designed to award a significant number of points to incentivize a player to take such a low percentage shot, most people would find such a huge swing to be “unfair”. Turning back to Open Face Chinese – while there are entirely valid reasons to make a Royal Flush worth 50 or 75 points in the back (to incentivize a player to pass over flush cards in an attempt to hit a royal), the flip side is that such a huge bonus can also result in an inferior player being thoroughly outplayed for the entire session and then hitting a royal by pure dumb luck and wiping out the entire night’s worth of victories for the superior player. Thus, the incentive for going for a big hand cannot be SO huge that it introduces too much random swings based on who happened to stumble into a super rare royalty that night.

So what does this all mean? Simply put, Open Face Chinese Royalties have to be analyzed under the rubric of being proportional to the risk inherent in going for such a hand, both in potentially fouling one’s hand, and in neglecting to build strong sub-hands in the other two rows,  while at the same time not being so large as to pervert overall gameplay by placing too much emphasis on achieving the royalty in question or by being able to single-handedly swing the results of the game from one side to the other based on nothing more than pure chance. And yes, I fully acknowledge that the preceding paragraph is about as dorky, academic and “lawyer-y” as one can be when trying to describe Open Face Chinese Royalty rules.

Admittedly, there are certain areas, such as Straights and Flushes in the middle, where I am not quite sure what is the best royalty payout – I believe it should be greater than it is but I don’t quite know yet how much “greater” it should be. I welcome any opinions on such issues. On the other hand, there are other areas where I feel my proposed royalty guide below is quite good and entirely defensible, and I plan to write such defenses and post them on this blog (I still welcome any opinions on these issues as well, please let me know what you think on any of these royalty ideas, whether positive or negative – vegasopenface@gmail.com).

So, now that I’ve most likely thoroughly bored you, the reader, allow me to move on to Part II – my actual proposed Royalty set, and then get into articles on why I think certain royalties should be certain payouts.

Pineapple Open Face Chinese

A bunch of people have asked me about “Pineapple Open Face Chinese”; they’ve either heard about it or seen the game being spread at Rio, and they want to know what exactly the rules are. Here’s what you need to know:

1) 3-handed max.

2) Dealt 5 as normal, and each player sets their hand in turn, just like normal Open Face.

3) Then, instead of being dealt one card at a time, a player is dealt 3 cards; they discard 1 and play 2. Then the next player is dealt 3 cards, and so forth. Thus, there are only 4 “streets” during the run-out from 5 to 13, as opposed to 8 streets in normal Open Face Play.

4) The discarded cards are not revealed.

5) Normal rules for entering FantasyLand apply; but there has been some chirping on twitter that the rules should be changed to make it harded.

6) For Fantasyland, you get 14 cards and discard 1. Boat in the middle will not qualify to stay in Fantasyland – only trips up top or Quads in the back.

My general thoughts are that it’s a fun variation, and definitely worth playing, but that some of the royalties probably need to be toned down -I’d recommend only allowing Fantasyland at AA+, and toning down the back royalties given the ease of making them in such a format. However, my hunch is that one of the main reason people like this format is that royalties are easier to make, thus making the game even more “gambooly”. Feel free to e-mail me with any thoughts or comments on this version.

The Potential!

I liked where I stood after 7th street with this hand. I don’t even care that I “only” ended up with Quads in the back, Trip 6s in the middle and 9s up top; I’ll take this potential spot every time.

Started JJJ/32; both 3 & 2 weren't particularly live, so I put them in middle to leave open straight/flush as a possibility. 6th card was a Jack, 7th card was the 6. I liked were I stood after 7th street.

Started JJJ/32; both 3 & 2 weren’t particularly live, so I put them in middle to leave open straight/flush as a possibility. 6th card was a Jack, 7th card was the 6. I liked were I stood after 7th street.