![]() |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] How many times do I think a player needs more than 60 seconds to make a decision? Not very often. But on those rare times when it is reasonable to take more time than this, a player's wishes should be respected unless that player has a history of being disrespectful to the game. [/ QUOTE ] I think a minute is about max. I agree that a players history could come into play here, but then you have to draw the line somewhere. You're really going to let one guy do it, then tell another guy 4 hands later he can't because he has a history of stalling? That wouldn't go over too well. I still think a minute is more than enough time. Someone just mentioned taking possibly 3 minutes. Can you imagine waiting that long? 3 minutes is an eternity in a live game. 3 minutes online is a disconnect. b [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I've let someone take 3 minutes for a decision a couple times. I can think of one occassion where I took at least 3 minutes for a decision. In all cases, I think the amount of time was warrented given the situation. It's not a case of staring someone down or Hollywooding. It takes some time to think through all the possibilities, remember hand you have played against that opponent in the past, do some Bayesian calculations, etc. This can easily take over a minute. Now obviously, you could take this amount of time factoring this stuff on every hand and you would be a jerk, but for exceptionally large decisions (e.g. facing a bet of >100 BBs), I think it is reasonable. Online is a totally different game with different rules of etiquette entirely. Also, I would never play online for the sort of stakes I will play live in large part because I feel so rushed. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
So as to not hijack the thread about ... [/ QUOTE ] The irony. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
I had two cases come up in a 2 hour session at the Casino AZ 5/150 game, that I had to think about over a minute. The first was when I tried to steal with J8s, button and blinds called, and the flop came KT9, it was checked around, turn a Q, I bet 3/4 pot, and get raised by button 100 more. I can't put him on anything but AJ, but I still had to think it out, and about 2 minutes, I finally folded and showed the J, and he showed AJ. About 20 minutes earlier, I raised UTG with AK, and the button called, as did the blinds. Flop comes A83, I bet 3/4 pot, button again raises 100, and I am not ready to go broke on TPTK, and think and think, and finally conclude he has 88 or 33, and I fold and show, and he shows AA. In either of these cases, if I only had 40 secs, I woulda ended up calling more than likely, and lost my stack in each case. For limit, yes it is crazy to ever spend more than 40 secs, but NL, a few times a session it is necessary. [/ QUOTE ] I agree, but how often do you need more than 2? So if someone calls time after 60-90 secs, I don't think its as outrageous as everyone is saying. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It is unreasonable for the online player to expect the B&M cardrooms to change how they do things to make the game like what he is used to online. [/ QUOTE ] I agree completely. The worst is when online players think that they can use IWTSTH any time they want, because they have the "right" to see mucked cards (because that's the way it works online). [/ QUOTE ] I've never had a problem with players using that rule. b [/ QUOTE ] I agree that IWTSTH is far abused. What I hate is that every fricken regular has to show his busted hand to his buddy before he folds it. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you need time to make a decision, just tell the dealer you need time. This pulls the rug out from under the people that want to call the clock too soon.
|
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that IWTSTH is far abused. What I hate is that every fricken regular has to show his busted hand to his buddy before he folds it. [/ QUOTE ] IWTSTH is different from "show one, show all," though. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don't get me started with the abuse of the show one, show all, that has morphed into the show one(card), show both....
|
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me started with the abuse of the show one, show all, that has morphed into the show one(card), show both.... [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, that's just weak. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Last night three times I had players ask a dealer to spread the pot and the dealer did so. [/ QUOTE ] On the other hand, a few days ago a youngin' asked the dealer how much was in the pot and the dealer said "I can't tell you". Kid asked "can you spread the chips out for me, then" and the dealer said "no". So they do sometimes still do it right some places 'round here. [/ QUOTE ] Thats absured.You have the right to ask the dealer to count the pot or spread out. If they said no then I would really slow the game down because the is getting called floor and Im making a scene. Ive never heard of a dealer saying no. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
You have the right to ask the dealer to count the pot or spread out. [/ QUOTE ] No, you don't (except in a PL game). Counting and spreading are two different things, but neither should be done (and counting will not be in Vegas). Players are responsible for keeping track of the pot size, if they so choose. If you have never heard of it, then I am guessing you haven't played a lot in Vegas. I have never seen a dealer comply with counting out a sizeable pot upon request (and with the advent of internet poker, there have been quite a few requests). When the pot has like $<20 in it then yeah, I have witnessned some answering the question, but that was only becuase it was glaringly obvious. |
![]() |
|
|