IWTSTH karma cooler

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]


This makes me feel a lot better cuz I was pissed at the floor for the ruling under the impression these cards were stuck in the muck deep, even at "clearly visible" it still shouldn't be attempted.

[/ QUOTE ]

anyone who wins the pot and invokes iwtsth deserves much much worse

[Mygtar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A couple rooms have now moved to only allowing one usage of IWTSTH per player per dealer, anything beyond that is abuse. It's not perfect but it's a start.

Al


[/ QUOTE ]Wow good rule. I wish they enforced that here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would settle for them enforcing any rule!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Wynn has abolished IWTSTH completely unless you are making an explicit accusation of collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Standing ovation. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[PantsOnFire]

I now make it a point that whenever this happens to me, I ask the player directly why he is accusing me of cheating. And I am not subtle about it either.

If the guy knows the rule is there for collusion, he generally looks sheepish and doesn't do it again. If he doesn't know why the rule is there, he does now.

At times I have needed to tell the dealer to not show my hand and to call the floor over. I then ask the floor to get a reason from the player for asking to see my hand.

I am fighting this rule with all the ammo I've got.

[jively]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple rooms have now moved to only allowing one usage of IWTSTH per player per dealer, anything beyond that is abuse. It's not perfect but it's a start.

[/ QUOTE ]
I played the 5/10 limit full kill game at Foxwoods a few weeks ago. There was a bad player who showed doucheness by asking to set a losing hand when he bet the river, was called, showed, and then asked to see. Floor comes over. Douche was saying loudly "blah blah blah I've played here 10 years, the rule is blah blah." Floor said "I will allow this to be showed, but no one can ask for the rest of the session."

Same douche was wrong on the "who shows first" rule when it went check-check on the river. "Blah blah blah I've played here 10 years and the rule is..." He was out of position and was wrong.

-Tom

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A couple rooms have now moved to only allowing one usage of IWTSTH per player per dealer, anything beyond that is abuse. It's not perfect but it's a start.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow good rule. I wish they enforced that here

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a ridiculously arbitrary rule.

A much better rule has already been mentioned - the requestor must state that he suspects collusion/cheating. He does not have to accuse, he merely has to suspect. If this happens more than once, then the floor should be called to help determine (with the dealer) if collusion might actually be occurring and take action, or if the requestor is simply abusing the rule.

This would cut down on 90% of the requests, since most people don't even know this is the rule. Why they don't make this more clear is ludicrous.

[Wongboy]

[ QUOTE ]
A much better rule has already been mentioned - the requestor must state that he suspects collusion/cheating. He does not have to accuse, he merely has to suspect....

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that your rule is better, but the best solution IMHO is to simply abolish IWTSTH altogether. If a player suspects collusion (or anything else), they should go talk with the floor. The floor can then look at mucked cards if necessary in order to determine whether players at the table are cheating. It is not necessary to show anyone's hand to any player in order to determine whether players are cheating. If a player suspects that the floor might be "in on" the cheating, then that player should leave immediately.

Like the poster above, I also have been known to confront people who use IWTSTH, but only if they do so repeatedly. I will start by asking them why they think that I (or the other player) are colluding. If they persist, then I will start to invoke IWTSTH on them by saying that I want to see their hand because I believe they are a dishonest person and are probably cheating (abuse of a rule = dishonest in my opinion).

[ungarop]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A couple rooms have now moved to only allowing one usage of IWTSTH per player per dealer, anything beyond that is abuse. It's not perfect but it's a start.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow good rule. I wish they enforced that here

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a ridiculously arbitrary rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arbitrary is right.

Has anyone played somewhere that has a maximum setup request rule? The nits always seem to ask for a setup (when it is not required for a damaged card) EXACTLY the maximum number of times. IWTSTH would likely be abused in the same way in a room that had that rule.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The problem with this solution is twofold:

1. The subsequent discussion/explaining/arguing/indignation/now everybody's pissed off wastes tons of time and does even more harm than just showing the hand in the first place.

2. Since the IWTSTH rule does NOT function in any way whatsoever to actually prevent collusion, this approach perpetuates the ignorance that was behind the creation of the rule in the first place.

I have seen this approach tried in actual live play. While it did prevent one or two hands from being unnecessarily turned over, it created a very unpleasant myriad of multiway backlash.

So this new twist is a start, not a cure but a start.

Al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I agree that with this rule the nits will likely ask the maximum possible number of times every time. However, it would still reduce the overall number of times the rule is used, because at the moment the jerks ask MORE than once per down. Many of them ask on virtually EVERY hand, and the dealer has to comply because "it's in the rules."

Like I said, it's not a perfect solution, but it's a start. The only real solution is to get rid of the rule completely because it sucks.

The new rule should be that no one can ask to see diddly EVER. If collusion is suspected then the floor has the right to see any hand at any time (when I'm in charge this part is ALWAYS the rule).

The REAL problem here is that the people who write rulebooks are usually old timers who are completely out of touch with life in the modern world of poker (or else they are a harrahs special, they are completely clueless and have absolutely zero knowledge or experience with poker, so harrahs gives them the highest possible positions).

Al