Stupid High-low split question...

[TxShadow]

I'm a little confused about the value of the following hand. This is an excerpt from The Theory of Poker (Sklansky):

I was playing five-card stud high-low split with a replace on the end. With an ace and an 8 showing, I called the max raises on third street even though two other players each had a 6 and a 5 showing. There was another player in the pot with an obvious pair of kings. When it got down to the last card, I had A,8,6,3 showing. One 6,5 had folded, but despite the strength of my board, the other stayed with a ragged 6,5,10,Q showing. And of course, the pair of kings stayed. Now I was betting and raising, hoping the Q,10 low would get out. But that player read me too well. He didn't even take the opportunity to replace one of his cards.
What I was trying to do was win the whole pot, the high and the low, from the two kings, but the Q,10 low was clever enough to figure out my hand. (basically opponent figures that David couldn't have an 8 low because he couldn't have called the raises on third street with an 8 low when there was 2 players who were obviously going for a 6 low and therefore he must have another ace in the hole). He was, of course, absolutely right. I won the high with my two aces, beating the two kings, but the Q,10 (won the low).

He goes on to say that his 2 aces would have taken the low from the Kings with low pair as well as high.

My question is:

If you have 2 aces in a high/low split game, they can count for both high and low pair? I thought generally aces were considered either high or low depending on the game.


P.S. - sorry this is so long.

[snoogins47]

I thought generally aces were considered either high or low depending on the game.

This is actually incorrect. The only games I can think of off the top of my head where the Ace is designated one or another are Lowball games. Aces go both ways in most games, and almost universally, from what I've seen at least, in high/low games.

[golddog]

Strange, I was actually just re-reading that the other night too.

In my copy, Sklansky says:

...the Q, 10 low was rewarded for his accurate reading with the low half of the pot (which I would have won against the two kings with my two aces counting also as a low pair)...

I found that strange as well. I'd never heard of a game where Aces can be the low pair as well. I just took him at his word.

[TxShadow]

Strange, I was actually just re-reading that the other night too.

In my copy, Sklansky says:

...the Q, 10 low was rewarded for his accurate reading with the low half of the pot (which I would have won against the two kings with my two aces counting also as a low pair)...

I found that strange as well. I'd never heard of a game where Aces can be the low pair as well. I just took him at his word.

Mine says that too, I abridged it so my post wouldn't be any longer than it was.

But yeah, I guess I was just getting lowball and high/low split type games mixed up in my head. I never get to play either on account that everyone I know just likes to play hold-em

[flafishy]

Aces are never a low pair in any lowball or split game I've ever heard of. They're always a high pair. A single ace is the lowest card. If he's saying a pair of aces can be low pair, I've never heard of that.