I am no longer tipping the dealers at CAZ until.......(long)

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
Player C announced the ranking of Player A's tabled hand. He did nothing wrong there IMO.



[/ QUOTE ]

It is the dealer's place to announce Player A's hand, not Player C's. Player C was in effect telling Player B that he HAD to be able to beat Player A and that he should table his hand. How about if Player C had just reached over, grabbed Player B's cards and tabled them for him? Or looking over at the cards in his hand and telling him that he has the winner. It's practically the same thing.

Nate.: I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Sorry if it came off that way plus I agree with much of what you say.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming there isn't another room in your area that is a viable alternative. It seems to me that this is more a management problem than a dealer problem. I would guess that dealers are not enforcing the rules because management is not making clear that they are expected to do so and/or not supporting them when they do enforce the rules. If that is the case, not tipping is not likely to make much of a difference. Taking you business to another card room (and perhaps writing a letter to the casino manager telling him why you are doing so) would be much more effective than not tipping.

[/ QUOTE ]

In actuality I think the main problem is that the game/players in the game (however you want to express it) have evolved beyond the *old* (shout-out to MicroBob) rules and there are new "defacto" rules. People who (like me) don't like what's going on are 'old-school', apparently. It's probably for the best that there are so many players that don't take the game seriously and don't have enough of a love for it that they want it the way it '*"should"*' be.

I have gone back and forth on this topic, changing my mind a number of times. Here is a post I made on RGP taking the opposite position to the one I took in this thread. At this point, whatever happens at CAZ after my little campaign is going to be it for me. I am going to simply accept they way it will be, whatever it turns out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

HB --

I think you're being a little reductive. Some of the old-schoolest, most grizzled, most "genuine" cardplayers I've ever met have been lax about some of this stuff. At the Bellagio 40-80 mix, which is home to some serious poker veterans, cards are routinely discarded faceup during triple-draw games.

--Nate

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player C announced the ranking of Player A's tabled hand. He did nothing wrong there IMO.



[/ QUOTE ]

It is the dealer's place to announce Player A's hand, not Player C's. Player C was in effect telling Player B that he HAD to be able to beat Player A and that he should table his hand. How about if Player C had just reached over, grabbed Player B's cards and tabled them for him? Or looking over at the cards in his hand and telling him that he has the winner. It's practically the same thing.

Nate.: I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Sorry if it came off that way plus I agree with much of what you say.

[/ QUOTE ]

HB --

Yeah, that's out of line. Tabling another player's hand would be even worse. But sometimes games are like that--even veterans will commit this breach of propriety. This is one of the breaches I'd most strongly prefer not happen, but in certain game climates it's all but impossible, and the cure would be worse than the proverbial disease.

--Nate

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]


HB --

I think you're being a little reductive. Some of the old-schoolest, most grizzled, most "genuine" cardplayers I've ever met have been lax about some of this stuff. At the Bellagio 40-80 mix, which is home to some serious poker veterans, cards are routinely discarded faceup during triple-draw games.

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

'Reductive' is a big word for a poker forum! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Pardon me, that's one of my favorite jokes.

Ok, I'm going to just leave it at this:

Certain things at the poker table bother me. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive and maybe not. This thread was instrumental in getting my point across to management at CAZ and I'm assured they will bring it up at the dealer meeting assumably to tell the dealers to clamp down somewhat. Whatever happens henceforth happens and I'm going to accept it. I'm not going to bring this topic up again and I'm going to dismiss all but the most egregious violations and just go with the flow.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Player C announced the ranking of Player A's tabled hand. He did nothing wrong there IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is not a hand value. Every hand has a value (at least in a game which doesn't have a qualifier)

[uclaben]

I have to say, I'm kind of surprised with the obsession regarding the one-player-to-a-hand rule that seems to permeate this (B&M) forum.

Granted, a rule is a rule; this is a legitimate one, and it's not close. There are many good reasons why you'd want to avoid having one player looking at another's hand, calling his hand at showdown, tabling the hand, etc. That being said, unless you suspect collusion - is this really an issue worth pressing? Yes, it sucks when someone points out to another player that he has the best hand at showdown and it costs you a pot, but how often does this happen? Once in every 100 sessions? Are you really counting on the inability of your opponents to read their own hands as a source of your poker income?

Don't get me wrong, you're well within your rights to object to the violation of OPTOAH. My point is simply that in most cases it's just irrelevant. Table talk may cost you in the short run, but I see no reason why it wouldn't end up even, or even +EV for a good player, as time goes by. I think it's reasonable to be unhappy about it, I just don't buy that this is the kind of inexcusable offense that some here seem to make it out to be.

JMO.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player C announced the ranking of Player A's tabled hand. He did nothing wrong there IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is not a hand value. Every hand has a value (at least in a game which doesn't have a qualifier)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm ok with this one. "Nothing" is another phrase for "no pair". Howard is upset that player C read the hand instead of the dealer but agrees the dealer could/should have read it? In which case, player C did fine. Dealers all the time read off hands as "no pair" or "high card" or even "nothin'". Basically the hand is tabled and at that point I'm fine with anybody reading it aloud, particularly if it's clear the opponent is going to sit there and stare for 30 seconds until he figures out what he's facing--might as well speed up the game.

Players whispering to each other during hands is absolutely *NOT* ok ever at all. NO compromises. I want to play one opponent who knows what his own two cards are, not two opponents who share knowledge of 4 cards.

[eastcoaster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player C announced the ranking of Player A's tabled hand. He did nothing wrong there IMO.



[/ QUOTE ]

It is the dealer's place to announce Player A's hand, not Player C's. Player C was in effect telling Player B that he HAD to be able to beat Player A and that he should table his hand. How about if Player C had just reached over, grabbed Player B's cards and tabled them for him? Or looking over at the cards in his hand and telling him that he has the winner. It's practically the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, and do not think it is "practically the same thing."

Had Player C reached over and tabled player B's cards then, yes, he would be wrong. Same if he had looked at the cards and told him he had the winner. Those are actions taken that would indicate to me that he was trying to help Player B read his hand before it was tabled. He would have been making an effort to help player B. That is a no-no.

That is quite different than simply calling out the ranking of an already tabled hand, which is precisely what Player C did. Player A's hand was already on the table, face up, when Player C announced, "nothing." There is nothing wrong with someone reiterating how tabled cards "speak," IMO. That is perfectly acceptable to me, especially if the dealer isn't doing their job here, which also seems to be the case and a major point of yours in this thread, overall. What is the difference if player B calls out the tabled hand, or the dealer?



"Nothing is not a hand value. Every hand has a value (at least in a game which doesn't have a qualifier)"

True. So then this basically means that Player C isn't even necessarily referring to a hand or anything relevent to the game going on in front of him.

What if Player C had tabled his hand, and what if it was a full house and Player A had said, "Boat."? "Boat," is not an offical hand ranking either. It is poker jargon for a a "full house" in the same way that "nothing" is taken to mean "no pair" or "high card".

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
The primary responsibility for policing the game should rest with the players. When something like the incidents you describe happens, I will ask the dealer to tell the players "one player to a hand," or ask the players not to show cards to other players, or do not dicuss a hand while it's in progress, etc. The dealers are not well-trained, or trained at all, to deal with these types of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way. It's the dealer's job to take care of all this nonesense.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now that I know that so many CAZ regulars frequent these forums, I can't just assume it's a fish farm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll let you in on a secret - just because someone spends time at 2+2 doesn't mean they know how to play. 90% of 2+2 is very fishy, the balance of 10% is who you want to avoid. And the really great players help make the game good without you even realizing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch! That really stings.