[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a couple questions. Maybe Lee Jones can answer them:

1)Why is the OP so irate over this situation involving players whose tourney buy-in dwarfs his bankroll? JC Tran wasn't exactly irate over the situation, so why should the OP? Killing "the integrity of the game". Are you serious??? The AP situation kills the integrity of the game. This at most [censored] on it. More of a crop-dusting really . . .

2)Ok, so I only had one question.

3)More of a statement, than a question. OP, in your straight flush hand, the villain's hand was tabled in that he threw his cards - face up, mind you, onto the table. Yes, his intent was to muck. Yes, the mfing dickbag at the other end of the table needs to keep his mouth shut since it's not his hand. His cards are still live until the dealer turns them face down and places/mixes (in some casinos, aka my .25/.50 nl home game) them in the muck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen very carefully. I understand what the ruling is. However, if this ruling (in place to prevent collusion) which can be EASILY be taken advantage of by those colluding, causes the villain to be awarded the pot, after having his cards hit the muck, it is disgraceful. Where is the differential between an all-in event in a cash game or a donkament that requires separate rulings?

IMFHO, anyone who decides having their cards hit the muck, for WHATEVER reason, is more important to them than letting the cards read, deserves them to lose their right to the given pot and is MUCH more important than flipping cards up in every donkament all-in event to prevent "collusion". If a player wanted to collude, there are any number of ways to work out dumping a stack without turning up the cards. That is a pathetic excuse for allowing this [censored] to happen.

If not, then why the [censored] have the 'cards hit the muck they're dead rule' at [censored]ing all?