Was I justified or out of line
 

OK, second level of a home tourney, 8 players remain at my table. Effective stacks still 5,000 +/- 500, blinds 50/ 100. UTG limps, folded to me in the cut-off where I find KhQh. I pop it to 300, folds to BB who calls, and UTG calls.

So we go 3ways to the flop with 950 in the pot. Flop comes K83 with 2 spades. Check, check, and I bet 700. BB folds, UTG calls.

Turn is the 3d and UTG checks again. I'm fairly certain MHIG and I pot it by betting 2350. I guess I could have tried to extract value but at the time I just wanted to put it away and move on to the next hand. My best guess was that he was on a flush draw. Surprisingly, he gets sticky and calls again.

River comes the Ac, so final board is K833A rainbow and UTG smugly donks 500, WTF? "ChitDamMuthaFut". There's like zero chance this is a bluff, but 500 into a 7550 pot is an autocall so I do.

He waves the Ad, and I nod and say "Table it" and open my KhQh. I paid for a call and wanted to see his hand, since he didn't have the As, I wanted to see why he was chasing. But I guess as well as being a donkey, he's hard of hearing too and he throws his hand into the muck and reaches out to sweep in the pot. I say "Wait a second, I win” and everyone looks at me like I'm crazy. "He mucked, I have the only live hand, I win." Now I know in a real cardroom, I'm getting the pot here, and I do have an allie that agrees, but 3 or 4 guys come to his aide and say "He had an Ace, we all saw it". I break out Robert's and make them read how this is my pot, incidentally Robert's is specifically incorporated as the house rules. Still they are insisting I'm being an ass and violating the "Spirit of the Home Game."

They ask me why I'm being an ass and I tell them I called 500 to see what he was chasing me down with, so he retrieves the Ad4s out of the muck, OK here you go. So his allies think that everything is settled and start pushing the rest of the pot to him. So I start yelling at this point and call UTG a stupideffingidiot so then he shoves he's whole stack across the table and storms out in a huff.

I went on to win the tourney, but it was a very somber atmosphere, and 2 days later it seems at least half of the 16 players are pissed at me.

I know I shouldn't have raised my voice, called him names and swore so that was all bad, and I have even come to the realization I should have just sucked up the loss and tossed my hand into the muck when I saw I was beat. But what I'm wondering is, was I really that far out of line when I am technically right by the rules?

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Hi sir,

This looks like an angle shoot to me. I would not like to play with such a player in my game.

Thanks.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

As long as your game uses Robert's rules as the official rules you're right and should have been awarded the pot. That being said, I would have let it go, he showed the A, gave him the pot but explained for anyone who didn't know you need to show both cards at the showdown.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

If you really just wanted to see his hand you could have insisted he retrieve the cards. Don't try and pull this kind of stuff at a home game unless you are playing for serious cash and it isn't with friends.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Quit being a nit, you saw the ace and so did a few other players. It's a home game (regardless of stakes) and you must know the majority of these guys to some extent. Why frazzle friendships over something like this?

P

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Hi there [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Robert says:
"1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not."

Additionally:
"5. Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins."

So, I totally agree with you [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

However, if you insist on a certain ruling on a justified ground (such as, an agreement among friends, or RRoP), try to keep it objective. There was no need to call the guy nasty names.

Btw, did you talk about RRoP with the group? It seems as if the guy wasn't aware that this rule exists.
It is very important (especially among friends) to study the rules together, so that there won't be any uncomfortable situation, or surprises when a ruling has to be made which costs the guy who was wrong the pot.

Just as a side note, I am sick of this "Hey, we r buds and it's a home game, so relax..."!!! There are rules in every game that are to be met to provide for a fair game and a comfortable atmosphere. If everybody sticks to the rules there won't be any quarrels about it. Of course you will have to vote on each rule individually in a home game whether this or that rule should be used or not. Robert's provides a well thought ground on which rules can be selected etc.
My experience tells me that quarrels always arise if there was no ruling determined in advance, or if someone didn't read the acknowledged rules thoroughly. In your case, this guy "mucked" his right to claim the pot by throwing one card away, because he wasn't aware of this rule. So, he's wrong, not you. (You are of course wrong in calling him nasty names; you said so yourself.)

I constantly run into quarrels myself with some of my buds, because they do not read the rules, or do not even care about them. This sucks. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

You may be technically correct - but you were out of line to be so anal. A simple - "I paid to see your other card" - would have done - not....I WON - I WON - I WON....

Personally, I would give you the choice...let common sense prevail (What do you expect playing KQ against people who don't even know the rules?) and carry on with everyone playing OR give you the pot you demand and never invite your hostile-arse ever again.

I'm all for home games being played within known rules but it is scenes like this that destroy them.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

At the very least, you should have given up your claim to the pot once he retrieved his hand and showed it to you. You wanted to see what he was playing, as was your right, and you saw it. Now drop the ridiculous rules-lawyering.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Out of Line.

Don't be surprised when you don't get invited back.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[ QUOTE ]
Out of Line.

Don't be surprised when you don't get invited back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Why is is so hard before you table your KQ to ask "What is your kicker". Yeah there are some yahoos that just want to show one card but that way they will show it with out the big issue.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

I wouldn't play with you again or play in a home game that awarded you that pot regardless of the technicality.

If this is a game you played regularly in are they real anal rule nits or is more of a typical home tourney atmosphere? If in the past the game is a typical home game you were wayyyy out of line IMO.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Insisting that he show his other card is fine, trying to take this pot is a pure scumbag move. Frankly, you sound like a real ass.

[ QUOTE ]
So I start yelling at this point and call UTG a stupideffingidiot so then he shoves he's whole stack across the table and storms out in a huff.

I went on to win the tourney, but it was a very somber atmosphere, and 2 days later it seems at least half of the 16 players are pissed at me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope it was worth it.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

You knew you lost when you called the 500 -- you only called to see his cards.

Telling him "two to win" I think is fine -- and making him show both his cards.

Trying to win the pot on an angle shoot is practicing assholery.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[ QUOTE ]
So I start yelling at this point and call UTG a stupideffingidiot so then he shoves he's whole stack across the table and storms out in a huff.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL

grow the hell up

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

What makes this obviously an angleshoot by you is that you tabled your losing hand, THEN asked to see his other card.

In my game, I'd give you that pot (teaches player A a lesson), then ban you for some number of weeks, if not forever (teaches you).

The right way to see both is cards is to make him show before you table your hand.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Thank you all for your comments. Clearly I was way out of line. Like I said in the OP I wish I just sucked it up and tossed my hand away. And again I should just drop it, but I am strangely compelled to dig a deeper hole to clear up some misconceptions.

When I tabled my hand it was not with the intention to get the pot on a technicality. I was on tilt and really just wanted to see how he chases me down with an ace high, so when he tosses his cards in the muck I was denied that satisfaction.

Also, as a backdrop, previous games were plagued with other rules diputes. I was not a party in those issues, but I did suggest to the host that he should incoporate Robert's as a means to resolve disputes. So at the start of the game a mere half hour earlier he waved his print out and said the game would be played in strict accord to Robert's. So I guess that's how the idea creeps into my head when I look at the table and have the only live hand. I guess we aren't playing to Robert's after all.

For whatever it's worth, it's $300 buy-in, with the host taking a 10% rake. With $500 leaving the pot, I think I'm entitled to expect standards beyond the usual home game. Like I say, if the exact same thing happens in a cardroom I get the pot and the villain learns a lesson the hard way. And that would happen without me having to say a single word.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[ QUOTE ]
Robert says:
"1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not."

Additionally:
"5. Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins."

So, I totally agree with you

[/ QUOTE ]

I very MUCH doubt that Bob Ciaffone intended for the first rule to be used to award the pot to the second-best hand. While the Ace should have been chided for only showing one card (unless this was a common practice), it is a rulesnit angleshoot to try to claim the pot here.

The Ace was shown. OP loses the hand. Pretty much EOS.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

I think the best suggestion so far is to wait for the other player to show both of his cards prior to revealing yours.

Also, there's no reason to start yelling and calling people names. You want players who play like that to like you so you get to keep playing with them. -EV move, there, chief.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

I'm pretty sure the main reason for that rule in Robert's is in the case that someone is expected of cheating, you can see both his cards, as well as anyone elses. Abusing the rule in a casino does not end well.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Well I tell you what Taso, why don't you try a little experiment? The next time you're in a Casino and manage to have the trump Ace to a 4 card flush on board, instead of tabling your hand, just wave the Ace around so a couple of people see it, then toss your hand into the muck. Let me know how that turns out.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Wow, do you not have the right attitude for home games. Go play somewhere else.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...8cd/POTBIN.jpg

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Well, this wasn't exactly a home game. It was more of an underground illegal game with a rake being taken off the tournament entry fee. With $300 on the line, I can see how thing might not have been "just for fun" as most of us are used to playing.

That makes your behavior even more stupid. Now not only are you pissing people off, but you're probably lucky you didn't just get tossed out for going off on the guy. The other people there didn't pay $300 to be berated by your angle-shooting tirades.

Your behavior was out of line, no matter what excuse you try to use, you were out of line. I'm sensing you expected to get some confirmation from this thread, like somehow people were going to side with you. That just isn't the case, because most of the guys in this forum know how to conduct themselves with class.

If you want a casino experience, play in a casino. If you want an underground game where the rules are going to be a little more relaxed, continue to play in your game if your buddies will have you back.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

You should take some of your winnings and but a lot of beer as a peace offering.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[ QUOTE ]
...then he shoves he's whole stack across the table and storms out in a huff.

I went on to win the tourney,...

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you keep the rest of his chips or were they taken out of play? Funny either way...

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

If I pay $300 for a tourney I expect everyone to abide the rules!
This is not "just a home game with some buddies" anymore - this is about (a lot of) real money, guys!

Calling your opponent nasty names is a no-go, not abiding the rules set is a no-go as well!

Especially in a game in which real money is involved, sticking to the rules is key for a peaceful atmosphere.
I mean, come on, this is not kindergarden anymore! Behave like adults and stick to the rules - that's what they are made for.
If you don't want to stick to the rules set go and play Monopoly where it doesn't hurt someone's wallet!

[ QUOTE ]
I very MUCH doubt that Bob Ciaffone intended for the first rule to be used to award the pot to the second-best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know? I think, the word choice speaks for itself. There is no evidence for this interpretation of yours in the text - and it's hypothetical, BTW.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't the case, because most of the guys in this forum know how to conduct themselves with class.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I think that's the primary point here, especially when dealing with illegal gambling. the integrity of your character is everything. in one of the local games here, a player dealt a game of blackjack using his wallet to back the game... he basically busted out owing a player $20.

rather than having the house cover it the idiot just walked out. now, nobody will let this guy into any games and some people want to kick his ass. if anything, the punitive amount of the debt is even more insightful of this guys character. can you imagine what he would have done if he owed $1,000?

the OP is not a $20 theif but i doubt people want to play against a verbally abusive angle shooter while having to mind the letter of the law 24/7 while drunk or sober. i can understand tournament players being this nitty (since there is no need to retain long term voluntary opponents) but doing this in a private card room is just character suicide.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I very MUCH doubt that Bob Ciaffone intended for the first rule to be used to award the pot to the second-best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know? I think, the word choice speaks for itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

How? Because I can use login, perhaps?

Why don't you try to put together an argument, matching this rule to the OP's scenario. Then, use that to convince me that Bob Ciaffone would point to the "show both cards" rule mentioned and say "Yes, I want the second-best hand to get the pot because the winner only showed the important card. That's why I wrote the rule"


[ QUOTE ]
There is no evidence for this interpretation of yours in the text - and it's hypothetical, BTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can it be hypothetical when we're talking about a situation that happened?

[ QUOTE ]
If I pay $300 for a tourney I expect everyone to abide the rules!
This is not "just a home game with some buddies" anymore - this is about (a lot of) real money, guys!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so what's your threshold where being a nit on a rule entitles second-best to the pot, here- $150? $100?

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well I tell you what Taso, why don't you try a little experiment? The next time you're in a Casino and manage to have the trump Ace to a 4 card flush on board, instead of tabling your hand, just wave the Ace around so a couple of people see it, then toss your hand into the muck. Let me know how that turns out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure seem motivated to justify being an ass. Why ask for our approval? If you want to be an ass, be an ass.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you try to put together an argument, matching this rule to the OP's scenario. Then, use that to convince me that Bob Ciaffone would point to the "show both cards" rule mentioned and say "Yes, I want the second-best hand to get the pot because the winner only showed the important card. That's why I wrote the rule"

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule says that you have to show all cards to win any part of the pot. Put another way this means that you can not win any part of the pot if you do not show all your cards. Period. So, if you muck part of your hand at the showdown, which implies that you do not show all your cards (which is exactly what this guy in question did by showing/"waving" the ace only), you kill your own hand. He showed one card only (not enough to win since you have to show all of em!) and mucked the whole hand afterwards. The only live hand was the tabled KQ.
It has nothing to do with "award the pot to the second-best hand", because technically that so-called second-best hand (KQ) is the only live hand at the moment (making it actually the best live and valid hand).
I think this matches the situation, does it not?

[ QUOTE ]
How can it be hypothetical when we're talking about a situation that happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you got me wrong. I meant that it is hypothetical trying to suppose what Robert would say to this. How do you know how he wanted this situation to be handled? Your only source is the text. And the text says: show all your cards to be entitled to win. And I suppose that's how Robert wanted it to be ruled here.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so what's your threshold where being a nit on a rule entitles second-best to the pot, here- $150? $100?

[/ QUOTE ]
My threshold would be $00.01
As mentioned above, technically, there was no other hand entitled to win the pot, because that hand in question was (partly) mucked by the player and therefore dead.

If one didn't like this very rule, or if one found it uncomfortable playing according to it, one should simply erase it. But once it's set, one should apide it.

I think this very poker group would do best erasing this rule to prevent trouble and so-called "nit picking". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Why don't you stop your bickering and email Bob and ask him? That seems the best way to know what he intended. It's so crazy it just might work!

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you try to put together an argument, matching this rule to the OP's scenario. Then, use that to convince me that Bob Ciaffone would point to the "show both cards" rule mentioned and say "Yes, I want the second-best hand to get the pot because the winner only showed the important card. That's why I wrote the rule"

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule says that you have to show all cards to win any part of the pot. Put another way this means that you can not win any part of the pot if you do not show all your cards. Period. So, if you muck part of your hand at the showdown, which implies that you do not show all your cards (which is exactly what this guy in question did by showing/"waving" the ace only), you kill your own hand. He showed one card only (not enough to win since you have to show all of em!) and mucked the whole hand afterwards. The only live hand was the tabled KQ.
It has nothing to do with "award the pot to the second-best hand", because technically that so-called second-best hand (KQ) is the only live hand at the moment (making it actually the best live and valid hand).
I think this matches the situation, does it not?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think this "matches" the situation at all. You and the OP are trying to use a rule, written to solve a specific problem in order to take away a pot from the winning hand based on a technicality that doesn't apply to the main goal of the hand.

If you think that the mindless application of rules is how a poker game should be run... then I feel sorry for you. Evidently you seem to think that applying the letter of the law is more important than the spirit.... since, for you, the threshold for trying to take away the pot from the bbest hand is ANY money whatsoever:

[ QUOTE ]
My threshold would be $00.01

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't argue with that statement- because, of course "...I think, the word choice speaks for itself. There is no evidence for this interpretation of yours in the text "


If I had big money, I'd bet it ALL that you'd never get Mr Ciaffone to say that the intention of his rule was for the purpose that you and the OP are perverting it into. BIG money. Lucky for you I'm broke.



In fact, the OP was trying to angle shoot the pot because he was mad about losing and the fact that the donkey didn't fold the turn like he was supposed to, IMO. He wanted revenge. Reckless1der as much as admitted so:

[ QUOTE ]
Flop comes K83 with 2 spades.
Turn is the 3d and UTG checks again. I'm fairly certain MHIG and I pot it by betting 2350. I guess I could have tried to extract value but at the time I just wanted to put it away and move on to the next hand. My best guess was that he was on a flush draw. Surprisingly, he gets sticky and calls again.

River comes the Ac, so final board is K833A rainbow and UTG smugly donks 500, WTF? "ChitDamMuthaFut". There's like zero chance this is a bluff, but 500 into a 7550 pot is an autocall so I do.

He waves the Ad, and I nod and say "Table it" and open my KhQh. I paid for a call and wanted to see his hand, since he didn't have the As, I wanted to see why he was chasing. But I guess as well as being a donkey

[/ QUOTE ]

Reckless1der said he saw the winning Ace, I doubt he's the only one who saw it. So he can't say he didn't know he lost.

He ALSO knows, if he thinks about it before opening his mouth in frustration, that there is NO draw that the player could have been on. Either donkey was ahead with AA, AK or A3 and OP overplayed his top pair, or donkey had a lucky catch with A8, or donkey had AX and was drawing to 6 outs at best. You do NOT have to see the hidden card to know that- the "donkey" defined his hand by exposing the offsuit winning Ace.

So, the whole thing is just about being vindictive and petty and getting some "see? you SUCK!" misplaced satisfaction... as many IWTSTH claims often are, in my experience.

Suckouts are painful and "bad play" hurts when you get nailed by it, but if you don't accept and appreciate that these are the reasons to PLAY poker, then don't act as if you are a poker expert.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

Kind of bad form for a home game, but generally it is required that you show both cards at showdown to claim the pot.

Yes, you can establish that you have the winning hand with one card, but the other player paid (and is entitled) to see both of your cards. If a player doesn't know he has to show both cards it could be an unfortunate situation, but it's every player's responsibility to know the rules.

This should be a minor home game issue really, but if you do this in a lot of cardrooms you risk giving up the pot.

I know it seems a little nitty, but so is losing a huge pot and only getting to see half a hand.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, the whole thing is just about being vindictive and petty and getting some "see? you SUCK!" misplaced satisfaction... as many IWTSTH claims often are, in my experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely right Larry. Guilty as charged here. I reacted very poorly in the heat of the moment, I have admitted as much and wish I just tossed my cards into the muck and just sucked it up. I have said this twice already.

Still the fact remains, I asked him to table his hand and he mucked it instead. Being I am the only player with a live hand, do I not get the pot. That was my thought process at the time, and I do still think that it has merit.

Long story short, I have distributed my winnings to the legitimate winner of the hand and a portion going to the other players that cashed.

I think the one dude had it right. Let's shred this stupid thread.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

I was all ready to blast you for being a nit, and to some extent I still think you are. But, the fact that this is a $300 buy in with a pretty deep juice of $500 for the host makes me think you are entitled to a little more serious and rules-oriented level of play. You shouldn't be given this pot on an angle shoot, but for future instances insist on etiquette being adhered to if these are the playing conditions.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

What a dick! :[

I'd hate this homegame and boy with some people I know I'd be glad that they left cuz alcohol + this story = CLOBBERIN TIME!

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

I agree completely that donkey was out of line for the show n muck and should be warned (and punished properly for repeated behavior).

But to award the pot to second place when the winner has been shown, regardless of the exact manner, is overdoing it IMO... especially at a home game.

What the OP SHOULD be getting upset about is that huge rake, if the numbers quoted are correct.

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

LOL that you wanted to see what he had been chasing you down with on a rainbow/drawless flop. He obviously played a weak Ace and got lucky. What more is there to know?

Re: Was I justified or out of line
 

[ QUOTE ]
written to solve a specific problem

[/ QUOTE ]
So, which specific problem would that be? I mean, the problem in hand is a specific problem, is it not?

[ QUOTE ]
I feel sorry for you

[/ QUOTE ]
No need to.

[ QUOTE ]
letter of the law is more important than the spirit

[/ QUOTE ]
The law is supposed to be the written form of the spirit, isn't it. If you have a different spirit, don't set this rule. I'm fine with that.

[ QUOTE ]
Reckless1der said he saw the winning Ace, I doubt he's the only one who saw it. So he can't say he didn't know he lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a matter of seeing or knowing that you lost. It's a matter of not showing both cards.
I am not trying to take away a pot from the best hand. That so-called best hand was technically not present, since it was (partly) mucked. If the guy had turned over the second card of his two pocket cards before he mucked both, I would definitely award the pot to him.
I don't think that this is a mindless application of rules; the guy who mucked (part of) the winning hand was mindless and not aware of this rule - his own fault. Even if OP wouldn't care about the pot, I would award the pot to him, because technically he has the only live hand and therefore the winning hand.

Fact is, one of two cards was shown. Then, the whole hand was mucked. All cards have to be shown at the showdown to be entitled to win any part of the pot (before card's are mucked, of course!).

Whether OP was behaving like a nit, or whether he was tilting doesn't matter (it's a matter of etiquette). The other guy didn't abide the rule.

I know that this rule is really nit-picky. If you don't wanna be this nit-picky, don't set the rule. That easy.