fairest way to handle situation? - Page 3

BrooklynPoker · #21 06-19-2006, 10:54 PM

That rule only became a tourney rule two years ago at the earliest...before that the hand was dead and if you'd read the rest of the post you would see that I think that is the best option...one or two times seeing that would make people realize to follow proper etiquette (since etiquette generally has no financial repurcussion)

RR · #22 06-19-2006, 10:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That rule only became a tourney rule two years ago at the earliest...before that the hand was dead and if you'd read the rest of the post you would see that I think that is the best option...one or two times seeing that would make people realize to follow proper etiquette (since etiquette generally has no financial repurcussion)

[/ QUOTE ]

That became a tournament rule in the mid 90s. There were a few out of the casinos that hand't adopted it until it was put in the TDA rules in 2002. I am unaware of a time that well managed casinos killed hands for showing them prematurely.

KenProspero · #23 06-19-2006, 11:33 PM

fslex -- I think you're asking the wrong question.

You've asked what the floor should do. Well, this situation isn't all that uncommon, and IMO, the ONLY way for the floor to handle it is to call it consistently each time.

Now where we're going is what should the rule be. For this purpose, let's assume that CO screwed up and didn't do it deliberately.

What we have is a situation where Button received information he wasn't entitled to (and which SB didn't have) because CO screwed up.
I suppose you could call CO's hand dead, let the second best hand get the windfall of the entire pot. This is the rule in many NL tourneys, but I've never seen it in a ring game.

I suppose you could say it's 'fair' to let SB take back some or all of his bet. However, I don't think I've ever seen this in any poker game.

The other situation is to warn CO and sympathize with SB. I think this is what MOST casinos would do.

Percula · #24 06-19-2006, 11:50 PM

Wow! I can not beleive all of these people that think the hand should be dead. I guess it just goes to show how baddly so many rooms are ran these days.

The ONLY time a hand is dead for sure in a cash game is when it is fauled, e.g. put in the muck and can not be fished out.

CO should get a warning and if he repeats the offense, shown the door. SB's action stands.

BrooklynPoker · #25 06-20-2006, 12:00 AM

not saying it is the rule...I know it is Not the rule...what i'm saying is it SHOULD be the rule...
as the post above stated consistency would be teh most vital part of this...
If it was ALWAYS ruled dead then people would stop doing it

RR · #26 06-20-2006, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
not saying it is the rule...I know it is Not the rule...what i'm saying is it SHOULD be the rule...
as the post above stated consistency would be teh most vital part of this...
If it was ALWAYS ruled dead then people would stop doing it

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you are after consistency what is wrong with how it is now: the best hand wins and if you prove you cannot conduct yourself as a lady or gentleman you have to leave the room.

lmcjaho · #27 06-20-2006, 12:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Since you are after consistency what is wrong with how it is now: the best hand wins and if you prove you cannot conduct yourself as a lady or gentleman you have to leave the room.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that not only should the SB be penalized (loss of chance to take the side pot) outright by the CO's actions but you also advocate that the SB should lose his chance to recoup his losses from the CO by kicking CO out with SB's money in hand?

Personally, my thoughts on the fairest course of action is to deal out the rest of the hand and if SB would have held up against the flush draw then he should get the money CO cost him out of the main pot, CO takes the rest... This of course will not happen but it is the best logical response and should also help to impart the necessity of proper behaviour to the CO.

RR · #28 06-20-2006, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So you think that not only should the SB be penalized (loss of chance to take the side pot) outright by the CO's actions but you also advocate that the SB should lose his chance to recoup his losses from the CO by kicking CO out with SB's money in hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody said to put the CO out at this point, but if makes a habit of this sort of thing than yes he has to leave, right after he racks up his chips.

BrooklynPoker · #29 06-20-2006, 11:35 AM

It sounds like randy had tried this angle shoot in the past and that is why he is so defensive about the play...the point is that no matter how much money is at stake the player exposing his cards affected play for everyone else and that is NOT acceptable...no more than telling a player how to play a hand or showing your hand to another player when another guy is all in...
Just kicking them out is a start but if he walks out with the pot then what is the punishment....

Avatar of Wine · #30 06-20-2006, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like randy had tried this angle shoot in the past and that is why he is so defensive about the play...the point is that no matter how much money is at stake the player exposing his cards affected play for everyone else and that is NOT acceptable...no more than telling a player how to play a hand or showing your hand to another player when another guy is all in...
Just kicking them out is a start but if he walks out with the pot then what is the punishment....

[/ QUOTE ]

How on Earth could this be an angle? All of his money is in the pot - if anything, he's costing himself real-time dollars against an opponent that would be drawing dead.

It's a mistake, Brooklyn - you're advocating the most severe punishment possible here, which seems completely out of line. Would I be pissed if I were the SB? Sure - but unless there are severe mitigating circumstances (blood fued, a la Hatfield/McCoy? I don't even know), this can't be an angle.