|
|
|||||||
| 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 |
|
#31
11-21-2006, 11:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
Quick related question:
I am second to act on the river. Player to my right goes all in and I call with a pair. If he open mucks, am I still obligated to show my hand to win the pot? I know that if you go to the showdown, you have to show both cards to win the pot, but what if the showdown comes and you end up being the only remaining player? 
|
|
#32
11-21-2006, 12:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
[ QUOTE ]
your reasoning says "she had it coming!" now where i have i heard that before.... [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, what was she wearing?
|
|
#33
11-21-2006, 12:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.
[ QUOTE ]
Quick related question: I am second to act on the river. Player to my right goes all in and I call with a pair. If he open mucks, am I still obligated to show my hand to win the pot? I know that if you go to the showdown, you have to show both cards to win the pot, but what if the showdown comes and you end up being the only remaining player? [/ QUOTE ] You have the last live hand, you win the pot. Some dealers will automatically turn it face up, some will do so if asked by a player. The response I got from the floor regarding this issue was "Yes, you have the only live hand you win the pot. But, you have to prove you do have two valid cards." If you turn hand up and you wake up to A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] then you'll have some 'splaining to do. Or if you somehow were playing with a joker or the 17 of purple horseshoes... I have no idea what would happen if you turned up an invalid hand, but I do know that is why they make you show it. And when I said another player rightfully said IWTSTH this is the ruling I was thinking about... last live hand, gotta prove there's no 17 of purple horseshoes in it.
|
|
#34
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.
|
|
#35
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?
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
