|
|
#21
01-30-2007, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Life or Death
[ QUOTE ]
So technically the guy isn't dead and therefore his hand has to be treated as live and if he can't act, then he is folding. [/ QUOTE ] If the "best interest of the game" clause -- a rule that is "technically" in every casino's rulebook -- doesn't apply here, there's no point in having one. Also the casinos can save a lot of money by laying off the floorpeople and replacing them with Jetsons-style robots. I mean, really, from a BIotG perspective, what purpose could possibly be served by killing the hand? Making an example out of the dying guy to prevent incorrigible angle-shooters from attempting one last maneuver by raising with a reverse implied-odds hand 30 seconds before they croak? Both the all-in and full refund are fine in my book. 
|
|
#23
01-30-2007, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Life or Death
I understand that it sounds harsh, but should you punish the re-raiser? Even those saying that if this were the internet..., are actually off base. If it were the internet he would time out and have his hand folded. That is what I believe to be technically correct.
From the standpoint of being a decent human, if I were the re-raiser, I would allow him to take his money back.
|
|
#24
01-30-2007, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Life or Death
Your fallacy is that you treat failing to play the hand to completion as "punishment". Just because you get dealt two aces doesn't mean you're entitled to see a hand through to the end, much less that failure to do so (WHEN YOUR OPPONENT DIES, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!) is some sort of punishment.
It's a bad break, no different than when the dealer exposes your second ace and you get an offsuit four as the replacement. You'll survive it. Your opponent wasn't so lucky.
|
|
#27
01-30-2007, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Life or Death
I understand your point about the guy dying. It sucks for him. It sucks for his family. However, the situation with the hand is what it is. He's facing action and fails to respond. Like I said in both of my posts, If I was the re-raiser, I would allow his $500 to go back in his stack. But, if I was the floor, I would decide the outcome of the hand in the way that is most consistent with written rules of the game.
It is punishing the re-raiser. He likely made the re-raise to take down the $500. If the bettors action (even if its dying) prevents that from happening, the re-raiser is being punished. Again, the human element and the rules elements are two different things in this case.
|
|
#28
01-30-2007, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Life or Death
I thought that death renders many contracts null and void.
If in the middle of a contract one person dies, then the contract cannot be completed and therefore probably should be nullified giving the dead man his money back. The guy did not finish 'acting' out his wishes; albeit, he did a physically lay down but this is not symbolic. My ruling would be to nullify the hand as incomplete due to death. If there were more players in the hand, the dead man's money would be returned as unplayable and others would continue.
|
|
#29
01-30-2007, 03:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Life or Death
Guys & gals:
The ruling is the hand is dead, The villain wins the pot since his re-raise was not called. The casino will not discuss alternative options, it is purely at the discretion of the winner to offer the departed's estate a return of his initial pot commitment. The remaining chips will be counted, bagged, and stored for his estate's collection. The moral of this story: If your gonna drop dead while in the middle of a pot, don't do it in Las Vegas because your hand will be as dead as your cold body. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
|
|
#30
01-30-2007, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Life or Death
[ QUOTE ]
If the bettors action (even if its dying) prevents that from happening, the re-raiser is being punished. [/ QUOTE ] We have widely different understandings of entitlement, and hence of terms like punished.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
