Call the Camera

[Dranoel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Player A is an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Player A is OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I agree that Player A was an idiot. And OP is clearly an idiot. Of course, there's no proof that they're in fact the same idiot.

But that's where I'm putting my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't usually post in this forumn. This was an interesting topic, that's why I decided to post it. I don't know how the hell you guys can come to the conclusion that I was player A. I don't like to be called an idiot. I know it's been said thousands of times, but... You [censored] kids talk hella [censored] over the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

B840 relax my friend.

If the roles were reversed then you could probably see the humor of the OP being Player A.

Your post was valid (and formatted) to be discussed. There were a lot of things done wrong- and it's good to learn lessons from someones mistakes. And cheaper too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thanks for posting- and Player A should not have bet blind then let his chips get scooped by dealer.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like to be called an idiot. I know it's been said thousands of times, but... You [censored] kids talk hella [censored] over the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really don't like being called an idiot, then don't write like an idiot. Otherwise, don't complain. At least half of the responses here seem to be from people who are laughing at you. Hint: they don't think you're very smart. Are they all wrong?

"You [censored] kids", hah! What a riot! My sixth grade teacher would have kicked my rear if I wrote that badly - back in 1970-71.

My God, how far the standards have fallen. You should be embarrassed. Your parents would be horrified if they saw this thread.

Your neighbors paid property taxes for many years so that you could have an education. You should apologize to them, or at least pick up some litter around the old neighborhood. Do something; don't just go through life ignorant with an attitude.

[Chipr777]

This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. The pot should have been confiscated by the floor until the floor is sure who it belongs to to begin with.

[ QUOTE ]
The floorman said that they couldn't compensate for the mistake. An hour later I see player 3 seated at a different table.

[/ QUOTE ] If I'm the floor player 3 isn't allowed to play in the room until he pays the money owed to player 1.

[coyote]

use paragraphs.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The floorman said that they couldn't compensate for the mistake. An hour later I see player 3 seated at a different table.

[/ QUOTE ] If I'm the floor player 3 isn't allowed to play in the room until he pays the money owed to player 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely incorrect -- unless Player C knew that the money was not his. Once he is awarded the pot, he can play with it. Player C did nothing wrong. Player A failed to protect his action and his hand and the floor could have held the pot to the side until the correct ruling was determined. Player C did nothing wrong.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm the floor player 3 isn't allowed to play in the room until he pays the money owed to player 1.


[/ QUOTE ]

Finally a voice of reason amid the chaos.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. What "casino"?

6. How do you get a side pot of $80 when the river was bet & call? Sounds a bit fishy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. The third player was all in, that's why there was a side pot. This was at Garden City in San Jose.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
he second player assumes that the first player checked, so he bet. The 3rd player called

[/ QUOTE ]

Again. How do you have a $80 side pot?

And nothing surprises me about a decision at GC. Charlie or GQ or any other floor on the low limit end are teats on a hog. Should have insisted on a Shift Manager.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The best move for the floor would have been to impound the pot until the rightful winner could be determined.

Since this didn't happen, things get complicated. It is true that you can't force someone to go into their pocket. However, there are ways of persuading that are perfectly within the boundaries of gaming regulations.

I saw a somewhat similar incident a while back, and saw the solution too. A player had been faced with about a $400 all-in river bet. The dealer and at least 3 players heard him say "call." But when the other player quickly tabled his hand, this guy saw he had a loser. Now he changed his mind and claimed he didn't call.

Now you can no more reach over the line and forceably take a player's chips than you can make him go to his pocket. Despite the fact several people heard him say call, the bottom line is the cameras can't hear. This is why I make players put the chips over the line before I deal the rest of the hand. I know I've gone on a slight tangent here, but now for the similarity that ties it together.

This guy didn't want to pay off the river bet, but he fully intended to continue gambling in both the casino and the poker room (He was staying at the hotel). For the moment he tried to cash out, but the cages were alerted and he was denied.

The casino manager came up with the final solution. He gave the guy a choice - pay up, or keep the money and be immediately added to the barred patrons list permanantly (which included all hotels owned by that company). This is what the floorperson should have done, rather than let the guy keep the money AND keep playing.

This dealer needs a good swift kick in the nuts. I understand that everyone, including me, does make mistakes. But this guy wasn't paying the slightest attention to the game.

When a player bets dark, I announce "in the dark." I do this because confusion will often be the result if non-standard action is not clarified (a dark bet will often be mistaken as a bet that wasn't pulled in if neither the player or dealer calls it).

Also, I match the number of bets I'm bringing in with the number of players. I bring in the dead money first, leaving only completed bets for last, then count the bets (and the players) when I bring them in. Thus FOUR bets wouldn't jive with THREE players. Simple dealing technique should have prevented this problem.

And finally, when a player is obviously excited over his hand, I would question the situation in my head for a split second before just auto-mucking that player's hand. Besides, turning your cards face up without having called the last bet is not equivalent to folding. Tossing them in towards the dealer face down, that's a fold. I didn't see this hand but "tabling" sounds more like what occurred. I do understand the importance of mucking folded cards quickly, but it's never wrong to apply a little good judgement and common sense while in the box. Of course if you're not paying the slightest attention, all this might just pass you by.

And the player, well we'll skip kicking him in the nuts because this whole ugly mess already did that. He learned the hard way that poker is like real estate - protect your hand, protect your hand, protect your hand.

Al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

It may be technically possible to come up with reasons why "player C did nothing wrong," but that certainly doesn't make it RIGHT. Player C failed to abide by any standard whatsoever of true fairness, human decency or good sportsmanship. The worst part is that his atrocious behavior was rewarded by the floor having no balls or common sense.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Yeah, don't sweat it, paragraphs are good and TT likes to edit stuff. He edits my posts when I get a little carried away ranting about stuff and use borderline profanity type expletives.

ßeriously tho, two posts could say the exact same thing, but only the one that's formatted (with paragraphs) and easy to read will get good responses. And this was a very good topic.

Al