got hustled

[Photoc]

I guess it might be a bit different at the higher end games but from what I'm used to, there is no such thing as removing money from a pot.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess it might be a bit different at the higher end games but from what I'm used to, there is no such thing as removing money from a pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

With this in mind, I don't think I would want players to do business in a max buyin game. I don't have a strong opinion on how things would be in a max buyin game so somebody might be able to convince me to allow players to do business in a max buy-in game.

[Percula]

RR and Photoc, what are your thoughts on the room being involved in doing business at all?

For example in the OP's case if the room is "handling" the business, then wouldn't the situation be of the same vein of someone misrepresenting their hand to induce a muck?

[bav]

So in this situation what happens if another player at the table says "no way" to the proposed deal? Letting folks take back bets is something akin to passing chips at the table. If they didn't wanna bet so much, they shouldn't have bet so much.

I'm gonna be PO'd if they try to do this deal after they just ran me outta the pot with their all-in/call, and now suddenly decide they want to pretend that last bet didn't happen. That'd be obvious collusion and nobody would permit that, would they? Sounds like in OP's case there was no 3rd person playing so it's not the same thing, but it just seems like a bad idea to let money come outta the pot.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
RR and Photoc, what are your thoughts on the room being involved in doing business at all?

For example in the OP's case if the room is "handling" the business, then wouldn't the situation be of the same vein of someone misrepresenting their hand to induce a muck?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the room was handling the business the room would insist that both hands be turned faced up before discussing business.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna be PO'd if they try to do this deal after they just ran me outta the pot with their all-in/call, and now suddenly decide they want to pretend that last bet didn't happen. That'd be obvious collusion and nobody would permit that, would they?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a case like that they would need to do a more traditional insurance deal. Generally if a player at the table objects to doing business then there won't be any more business. I have never dealt with someone objecting to doing business except as a player. I was playing once and someone objected to us running it twice (they were new to poker and thought we were somehow screwing the rest of the players).

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised no one has had this to say yet:

You cannot take back action that has already taken place in this situation. You can make a deal to run it multiple times and split the pot, but no way should anyone be removing money from the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you aren't really saying this. Deals of this type used to be very common in NL. Running multiple times has replaced most other forms of doing business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though this is common in big games, I do not know why it is permitted. The idea that players can make a bet which causes other players to fold and then agree to chop up the pot between themselves is extremely objectionable to me.

[Garland]

You made the difficult, but correct call for all-in. Your opponent wants to make a deal, but doesn't show the hand? You think he's going to make a deal in your favor? If he has an overpair, he probably wouldn't say anything especially since you didn't insta-call the turn.

Personally, I would say "no" immediately and let the cards speak. If I "had" to make a deal, then I would force him to show his cards first. He knew he was screwed to 6 outs at best and it would be to his benefit if he could retrieve $3.4K of the turn bet back.

Garland

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you not insist on seeing his hole cards. Jeez.

[/ QUOTE ]
stupidity. naivete. believing poker should be a gentlemen's game. thinking that other ppl act on good faith. did i mention stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]
did u not consider the possibility that he would show you 33?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised no one has had this to say yet:

You cannot take back action that has already taken place in this situation. You can make a deal to run it multiple times and split the pot, but no way should anyone be removing money from the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you aren't really saying this. Deals of this type used to be very common in NL. Running multiple times has replaced most other forms of doing business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though this is common in big games, I do not know why it is permitted. The idea that players can make a bet which causes other players to fold and then agree to chop up the pot between themselves is extremely objectionable to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The nature of doing business is that the hands will be shown, so this eliminates (or makes immediately known) the collusive nature of this.