I guess it depends on if the wilds are limited or not (house rules). Also, see the wiki entry on "bug" in poker...jokers have limits imposed as an example. And 5 of a kind beats other hands I guess. So
Prior to reading your post, I had previously read the Wikipedia entry on wild cards, several times.
IMO, "house rules" trump all other known rules in poker. I also don't see that as my isolated opinion, and rather a fact regarding playing poker (or any card game) at a place. Fortunately, house rules for most poker rules/stipulations tends to be about the same wherever you go, but still has enough differences that it is likely very wise/helpful to confirm those rules for newbies.
In our home games, a wild card has never been played as 'fully wild.' I would play that way as long as dealer stated that rule up front, and clarified any questions that may come up. In the current crew I play poker with, I am the one that is known as most likely to call a game with a wild in it, and also the one who probably first played a game with wilds in it. I also believe I'm first person to play a wildcard game that had a high-low split pot. And I presented it as a wild must be paired up with a card in your hand (thus not fully wild) or could be used to make a straight or flush. IMO, the rules around a wildcard and high hand are generally understood and common for all groups I've ever played with. It's the low hand ordeal that this thread deals with and the one I see as something that online rule pages don't bring up all that much or leave a lot to be desired, IMO.
Wild cards do make the highest hand possible for when there is a high hand in play. That's the point I just made above and one I see as common understanding with wild cards. But this ought to be common sense as not applicable to low hand games, cause obviously you don't want to make the highest hand possible in that situation. And so if not playing the card as fully wild, then it can be tricky as to what that wildcard is within the hand. I actually stand by the logic of not playing it fully wild, just based on games where some version of stud is in play and a wild card is turned up. In all such games I've played, when a wild is turned up and is only card on the table for that player, the hand is deemed 'not yet made' and thus the person is not in control of the betting. Only when they are able to pair it up with a non wild card does there hand start to hold relevance to betting. Though, interestingly, I am a person who favors the rule whereby a person is holding an entire hand of wild cards, then they are holding a 'made hand.' Another person who I play with considers it a dead hand. So, when a wildcard game is being played, and there is chance of 5 wilds in a hand coming up, we do have to stipulate which version is in play. Most persons from our crew go with logic of '5 wild cards is a good hand.'
And yes, we do play 5 of a kind with wilds. 5 of a kind alway beats a straight/royal flush.
Suit of the wild, number on the card for the wild, and/or number of wilds in a hand doesn't matter in vast majority of games we play. Exceptions are the 5 wild card game I mentioned before. But we play that 5 wilds equals 5 aces. Honestly, as much as that rule ought to be clarified and usually is, the reality is in the last 20 years of playing cards, I've seen that come up once. Now, if it came up for a high-low game, it could theoretically be interesting as I would favor being able to call it 5 two's to get a lower hand than say someone who has 5 sevens, but I honestly don't think I've ever seen / played a game of poker where 5 of a kind took the low hand.
The other exception is we play a 3 card game with 2 wild cards, where 9's and 3's are wild, and the 9 is treated as 'best card' and 3's as 'second best card' and both are wild. So, if I am holding A-A-9, and another player has A-A-3, I would win. Or if I had say A-9-K, and another player had A-A-K, I would win. But if I had say 9-9-K, and another player had A-A-A, they would win. But last example here is is if I had 9-9-3, and another player had 3-3-9, I would win. None of this confuses me as I've played the game many times, plus play Bridge (or other trump games) and it is essentially same logic as trump. Though I don't think in the 5 hand games where someone has 5 wilds, they have a better hand than a person who has A-A-A-A-wild. I see those two hands as equal. And again, I've only once seen that come into play, so it is so rare it's not really worth analyzing all that much, IMO.
The only odd thing about original hands I posted in this thread that another friend pointed out to me is the rules that our group plays for Omaha, which never includes a wildcard. Yet, it is high-low game and we play (as most casinos do) that A-2-3-4-5 of all the same suit is of course a straight flush, but is also the lowest possible hand (or nut low). Which knowing that we always play that way, you'd think my King high straight flush would be agreed by all as a King high low hand, but no one, including myself even brought that up. I didn't because I dislike the idea that a straight or straight flush can be used as a low (where there is an 8 qualifier), but kinda surprised all those who do like that rule for Omaha didn't consider that option and award me the hand based on that principle that comes up in Omaha, a game we play about 40% of the time on any given poker night.
