|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Who is the most likly to get laid? | |||
| Apathy |
   
|
16 | 40.00% |
| good2cu |
  
|
19 | 47.50% |
| inyaface |
  
|
5 | 12.50% |
| Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
11-20-2006, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
[The short version]
Turn: I bet weak against three players, opponent on my immediate left, the button, min-raises. All others fold. I call. River: Flush gets there, I hesitate. I check. She looks at the pot, looks at me, kinda sheepishly smiles, checks behind. Showdown: Dealer looks at me, looks at her, looks at the pot, wouldn't mind giving it to someone. Neither one of us has tabled our hands, she says, "I've got nothing." I reply "well then, toss it in the muck." End Result: Yeah, I'm gonna burn in hell. Floor was never called, she said she was happy to learn the lesson for what was a relatively small pot. She finished atleast $600 ahead in the $1/$2 NL, losing that pot was not a big deal to her. I despise angle-shooters in general, but just committed my first blatantly intentional offense. The karma gods are gonna eat me alive. 
|
|
#2
11-20-2006, 05:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
Okay, I'll ask. You've got nothing on the turn, you don't have the obvious draw on the turn, you don't reraise the turn, and you don't bluff the river, ... so why did you call the turn raise again?
|
|
#3
11-20-2006, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
No comment on your play of the hand.
You are first, check the river, and tell your opponent to muck after she has checked behind. You were first to show, but instead bullied another player into mucking. Karma Kop says next time you visit that club, your car will end up with 3 flat tires.
|
|
#5
11-20-2006, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, she mucked and then you showed? Why the hell would you do that? [/ QUOTE ] I handed my cards to the dealer face-down. IWTSTH was rightfully invoked by a player not in the hand. I didn't object.
|
|
#6
11-20-2006, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
[ QUOTE ]
IWTSTH was rightfully invoked by a player not in the hand. I didn't object. [/ QUOTE ] How can IWTSTH be "rightfully" invoked by a player not in the hand? And how can it be invoked at all unless you are suspected of collusion?
|
|
#7
11-20-2006, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] IWTSTH was rightfully invoked by a player not in the hand. I didn't object. [/ QUOTE ] How can IWTSTH be "rightfully" invoked by a player not in the hand? And how can it be invoked at all unless you are suspected of collusion? [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm, 2 other players were pushed out of a pot by a 9 high and a nothing - This might just raise a few eyebrows about collusion, right?
|
|
#8
11-20-2006, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, 2 other players were pushed out of a pot by a 9 high and a nothing - This might just raise a few eyebrows about collusion, right? [/ QUOTE ] Sure, but as far as the story has been told, she mucked, and a player who wasn't in the pot wants to see his hand, and didn't use the word "collusion". If one of the players who was pushed out of the pot wanted to see both hands, I'd understand. A player not in the hand wanting to just see only the winning hand, is just a nit abusing IWTSTH. I hate rewarding nits who try to abuse the IWTSTH just to gain information. And I don't mind being a little militant about it.
|
|
#9
11-21-2006, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] IWTSTH was rightfully invoked by a player not in the hand. I didn't object. [/ QUOTE ] How can IWTSTH be "rightfully" invoked by a player not in the hand? And how can it be invoked at all unless you are suspected of collusion? [/ QUOTE ] A player who was required to show down the hand first bullied another player into mucking hers by being a douchebag. I'll use IWTSTH here too, just to enforce the rule that this guy had to show down. Yeah, I'm an ass too.
|
|
#10
11-21-2006, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
Does "there was some funny betting during the hand" qualify, or do I have to say "I think MrA and MsB are colluding"?
And what can the floor do if I do use the word "collusion"? Do I have to supply proof? Can he claim that he knows the players and that they would not do that? Or is he required to enforce the rule no matter what?
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
