Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused! - Page 5

Rick Nebiolo · #41 07-10-2006, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I would strangle player A and just beat the sh*t out of B. Get over yourself, show your cards, and move on to the next hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

In skimming the responses earlier I got this response mixed up with one referring to a "kick in the balls". I'd rather go with your option given I was B [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Michael Davis · #42 07-10-2006, 02:43 AM

"I'm sending a link to this thread to two players in the game who expressed interest in the discussion (I'll also send them Tommmy Angelo's IWTSTH article, since it's cool and sort of related)."

-EV. Nit.

-Michael

Rick Nebiolo · #43 07-10-2006, 03:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm sending a link to this thread to two players in the game who expressed interest in the discussion (I'll also send them Tommmy Angelo's IWTSTH article, since it's cool and sort of related)."

-EV. Nit.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

They asked. Besides, I do minus EV things all the time. It's the story of my life.

~ Rick

NoMoreLurking · #44 07-10-2006, 07:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-EV. Nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides, I do minus EV things all the time. It's the story of my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

"I do things that cost me money just because I want to show everyone I am right." Dam if that ain't the definition of NIT.

Ol Dirty Bastard · #45 07-10-2006, 09:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To answer your question under my rooms existing rules I would have the hand tabled. But I would rather rule that since player A did not show when he was supposed to he has forfeited his right to see player B's cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

He absolutly has to table the hand upon request. There was equal action on the river and the hand went to show down.

How could player A possibly forfeit his right to see the hand? He put money in, and retains the right to see the callers hand. The only thing he forfeits is the right to win the pot. Player B should accept the fact he has to show the hand since he is taking the pot.

Ol Dirty Bastard · #46 07-10-2006, 09:48 AM

If I rewrote the rules, I would rule that both players forfeit the pot since they are wasting the table's time as well as the dealer's time and the dealer may drop it as a toke.

JerseyTom · #47 07-10-2006, 11:36 AM

I haven't read every reposnse in this thread, but shouldn't player B need to table his hand if only to prove that he has a legitimate hand (i.e. he has only 2 cards, the deck was not fouled, etc.)?

Rick Nebiolo · #48 07-10-2006, 12:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read every reposnse in this thread, but shouldn't player B need to table his hand if only to prove that he has a legitimate hand (i.e. he has only 2 cards, the deck was not fouled, etc.)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another good point. There have been other threads or situations in cardrooms were a player only showed one card when he was supposed to show two at the showdown (let's say the ace to make a nut flush). The pot is often impounded then awarded conditionally based on the deck being checked.

So this is another argument in favor of always having to show down the winning hand (at least when called).

As an aside, I don't this conflicts with the trend in cardrooms (widely supported on this forum) to get rig of IWTSHT for losing hands.

~ Rick

Rick Nebiolo · #49 07-10-2006, 12:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I rewrote the rules, I would rule that both players forfeit the pot since they are wasting the table's time as well as the dealer's time and the dealer may drop it as a toke.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might note that I apologized to the table for time wasted and perhaps driving an action player away elsewhere in this thread.

To put this in context, please realize that I normally act very quickly, rarely am involved in floor decisions because of a mistake on my part, almost never get in arguments at the table, and rarely call the floor to the table for a natter similar to this. If I think I have the best hand I normally turn it over right away (even when I don't have to). Over the years I've saved dealers everywhere thousands of minutes.

So in effect I'm saying that I have a "time bank" of minutes saved, and used a little bit of it this time because I was "genuinely confused" as stated in the title of my post and am "genuinely interested" in seeing better, simpler, more "action inducing" rules written. Since I'll probably be working in the industry again I may be in position to do so.

I'm also the type to seek out the console of others, change my mind when people make good arguments in favor of a position I initially didn't agree with. This means I welcome any future input from you and others, seriously written.

Regards,

Rick

Rick Nebiolo · #50 07-10-2006, 01:16 PM

Michael Davis is a friend and we kid each other a lot, so I wrote the post above mostly in jest.

Regarding your definition of a nit, keep in mind that most people aren't 100% anything (e.g., honest, mean-spirited, civil).

A player who rarely acts like a nit can on occasion do something that appears to be nitty or is in fact nitty.

A player who is often a nit can rise above it on occasion and do something good for the game.

I have to fight an inner nit, and my usual behavior at the table leans toward not being a nit (I hope/think). But I may have been a nit this time as explained elsewhere.

That said, friends will surely bust my nuts pointing out how I'm a nit. I can take it.

~ Rick