Re: generalized stupidity sends al_capone_junior on a rant
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dealer must be able to speak and understand english well enough to effectively run a game

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to disagree with the dealers having to be fluent in English. They know English well enough to run the game

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, maybe I misread Al. But the dealer in question here clearly can communicate and understand English. I guess the point is the mistake could have easily been made by a native English speaking dealer as well.

Garland

Re: generalized stupidity sends al_capone_junior on a rant
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dealer must be able to speak and understand english well enough to effectively run a game where "english only" is the friggin' rule. I'm not trying to be mean or discriminate against anyone, but the bottom line is that english is a requirement, not just preferable. If you're new to the usa: learn friggin' english or go home. Seems even the non-english speaking world (who also no nothing about poker) are ready to jump on the bandwagon. This means sit around and wait for tips even tho you can't do your friggin' job, but that's fine because management is a bunch of ignorant fools too so they don't know the dfference anyway and don't care either.

Management who hires dealers who cannot speak and understand english effectively are doing their room, their customers, and poker in general a huge disservice. I will go further with today's idiot poker management and say they are truly stupid and should be fired if they can't find decent staff (who can speak english) and train/motivate them to do a good job.

Now for the players. Schmuck #1 doesn't give a crap that his action was soft, vague, and anything but clear, he'll just do anything he can to not have to face a bet he doesn't want to call. There are soooooo many ignorant morons playing today, and so many ignorant idiots dealing to them and running the rooms they play in, that this kind of crap is seen as normal and ok. It's not.

Player #2 is equally to blame and receives an equal amount of sympathy from me - none. He gets what he deserves here if they don't let him bet.

So basically, the whole situation, as posted on this forum daily in multiplicity, is just a symptom of the universal ignorance, stupidity, and lack of pride or professionalism that plagues poker today, largely due to the biggest morons of all, television poker producers.

The only real justice would be to somehow force the one idiot to call but still disallow the other to bet, and force the dealer to dump their entire day's tips into the trashcan.

Everybody gets kicked in the nuts. Get with the friggin' program already or get the **** out of live cardrooms.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]


Al instead of ranting about a dealer how about putting blame where it belongs

[ QUOTE ]
MP then asked the dealer “he checked?” in such a fashion that the word “checked” was emphasized and heard loudly, but the word “he” was deemphasized and somewhat muffled.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it the dealers fault that the player is not speaking properly?

Re: generalized stupidity sends al_capone_junior on a rant
 

When I get ranty I don't discriminate on the basis of sex, race, creed, religion, stupid looks or how much wpt you watched last week. I kick 'em all in the nuts first, and sort 'em out later.

Re: generalized stupidity sends al_capone_junior on a rant
 

how could that KK ever be anything but the 4th nuts with the information we have? depending on how you count?? lol

also regarding the guy that said "coun't" was a typo.. it's not a typo if you make it 3 times in a row, either that or it's a remarkable low probability event.

Re: generalized stupidity sends al_capone_junior on a rant
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I get ranty I don't discriminate on the basis of sex, race, creed, religion, stupid looks or how much wpt you watched last week. I kick 'em all in the nuts first, and sort 'em out later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its time you cut caffeine out of your diet. Look the dealer didn't hear something because the player didbn't say it clearly. When i screw up I take my lumps, but if you kick me in the nuts for not hearing something I'm going to kick you back.

Re: generalized stupidity sends al_capone_junior on a rant
 

[ QUOTE ]
Look the dealer didn't hear something because the player didbn't say it clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

Anyway, good thread and follow up Garland.

If we want to make rules and rulings better we need to a de-emphasize the use of verbal actions.

Cardrooms are often noisy and people from all over the world play these days; misunderstandings of verbal declarations are not uncommon. In cases where verbal actions must be used the onus should be on the one making a verbal action to be clear.

~ Rick

Re: Dealer contributes to confusion... Floor please!
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you aren't sure of the action call "Time" and ask the dealer the question "What and/or where is the action?."

And make it a habit to never say bet or check in a game (they sound alike when it's noisy). Let your chips or clear hand tap do the talking.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]


And by the way, "all-in" should also never be used as a question, but I frequently get that. now we have a problem because you meant to ask if the other player was all-in, but what I heard was you announcing that you are all-in.

Re: Dealer contributes to confusion... Floor please!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the clarification (between third and fourth) depends on whether you consider the nuts the best possible hand considering the board (out of ALL possible hands) or the best possible hand currently involved in the hand (terribly worded, I know, but hopefully understandable).


[/ QUOTE ]

The nuts are defined by the board. That's it. When shown a board, the nuts, 2nd nuts, 3rd nuts, etc. can be determined. There is no issue about "well i had the such and such card, therefore the nuts is this".

Think about it. TV hand. We "see" four different players fold an ace preflop. On the end the board is K Q J T 2 (rainbow). One player is holding a 9 and bets. Should the announcer proclaim "Player X is betting the nuts."? Or better yet, a player with air bets and the player holding the 9 folds. Should the announcer declare "what a donkey, player X just folded the nuts."?

Re: Dealer contributes to confusion... Floor please!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the clarification (between third and fourth) depends on whether you consider the nuts the best possible hand considering the board (out of ALL possible hands) or the best possible hand currently involved in the hand (terribly worded, I know, but hopefully understandable).


[/ QUOTE ]

The nuts are defined by the board. That's it. When shown a board, the nuts, 2nd nuts, 3rd nuts, etc. can be determined. There is no issue about "well i had the such and such card, therefore the nuts is this".

Think about it. TV hand. We "see" four different players fold an ace preflop. On the end the board is K Q J T 2 (rainbow). One player is holding a 9 and bets. Should the announcer proclaim "Player X is betting the nuts."? Or better yet, a player with air bets and the player holding the 9 folds. Should the announcer declare "what a donkey, player X just folded the nuts."?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand if the board reads 99884 and I hold 98 I would say that I had the nuts. Even though until you see my hand you would likely say the nuts was 99.

Re: Dealer contributes to confusion... Floor please!
 

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand if the board reads 99884 and I hold 98 I would say that I had the nuts. Even though until you see my hand you would likely say the nuts was 99.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I have a weird passion for this issue.

NO! (and I rarely use exclaimation points).

"Unbeatable hand" is not synonymous with "nuts".

I know at some level it's simply an issue of semantics, but for some strange reason it bugs me.

The nuts are defined by the board, NOT by hole cards.

In the example of a 9 9 8 8 4 board any player holding a 98 would have an unbeatable hand. To say he has the "nuts" however is just false. The nuts on that hand of poker is 99.

The only argument that I could see where the board shouldn't 100% define the nuts would be where there was an exposed card or (an even stronger case) a boxed card during the deal.

Even then, I think a strong case can be made that nuts are, well, nuts. Look at any complete board, the nuts never change.

(Again, sorry for the rant, but I have some sort of condition that makes me really care about trivial things).