|
|
#31
07-11-2007, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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] 
|
|
#33
07-11-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#34
07-12-2007, 01:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#35
07-12-2007, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#36
07-12-2007, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#37
07-12-2007, 04:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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!
|
|
#38
07-12-2007, 07:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#39
07-12-2007, 08:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#40
07-12-2007, 09:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
