|
|
#71
11-08-2007, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
05244,
your hand is totally different. The guy wanted to fold so his hand should have been mucked, in the hand this post is about the guy WAS ALL IN. He has no option to fold, his hand must be turned face up. 
|
|
#73
11-08-2007, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] huh? it's a general rule to prevent collusion. it has nothing to do with this specific hand. it's a rule. [/ QUOTE ] Just so. I don't think anybody believes there was attempted collusion, but were two players colluding, this is exactly how they'd do it. [1] The dealer probably should have called the floor first, but the outcome is the same no matter what. If the floorman gets there, it goes like this: Floor: "Are those his cards?" Dealer: "Yep." Floor: "You sure?" Dealer: "Yep." Floor: "Then turn 'em over; they're live." Mike Ward made exactly the right ruling, and anything else starts you down a dangerous and slippery slope. It was just one of a gajillion bad beats at the Foxwoods that day. Next case. I agree, BTW, that you should probably handle it differently in a cash game (clear intention to muck face down should be respected), but that's completely and totally irrelevant here. Regards, Lee [1] Erm, modulo the fact that the guy would probably bury his cards in the muck quickly so they couldn't be retrieved. [/ QUOTE ] FYI: I was personally involved in a hand at Foxwoods, 1-2nl cash game. Where I moved all in at the river on a 4 flushed board, only to have the villain show the 35h for a straight flush wheel and say in anger "I had you til the [censored] river". He then flipped his cards FACE UP and threw them towards the muck. Instead of the dealer killing his hand, loudmouth nit at the other end of the table yells out, "you have a straight flush". At which point villain begins to pull back his turned up cards and begin placing his barrels into the pot. Dealer called floor. Floor called another floor. Floor x 2 decided hand was live. Monkey playing 35h who doesn't even realize when he picks up a gutshot straight flush draw on the turn and mucks when he binks river, is shipped the $$. I posted this same story a few months ago only to be told that the ruling was correct. Cash game? lolFlipament? Explain please. [/ QUOTE ] i would have took the pot out of the loudmouths stack or ass one
|
|
#74
11-08-2007, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
I have a couple questions. Maybe Lee Jones can answer them:
1)Why is the OP so irate over this situation involving players whose tourney buy-in dwarfs his bankroll? JC Tran wasn't exactly irate over the situation, so why should the OP? Killing "the integrity of the game". Are you serious??? The AP situation kills the integrity of the game. This at most [censored] on it. More of a crop-dusting really . . . 2)Ok, so I only had one question. 3)More of a statement, than a question. OP, in your straight flush hand, the villain's hand was tabled in that he threw his cards - face up, mind you, onto the table. Yes, his intent was to muck. Yes, the mfing dickbag at the other end of the table needs to keep his mouth shut since it's not his hand. His cards are still live until the dealer turns them face down and places/mixes (in some casinos, aka my .25/.50 nl home game) them in the muck.
|
|
#75
11-08-2007, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
JC should take his Sklansky bucks straight to da bank!!
|
|
#76
11-08-2007, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
Everybody is wound up because of three reasons:
1. It was a sick runner-runner bad beat 2. The solid pro played well and lost 3. The dumb donkey played bad and won None of these facts should have any effect on whether the ruling was correct or not.
|
|
#78
11-08-2007, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
I have a couple questions. Maybe Lee Jones can answer them: 1)Why is the OP so irate over this situation involving players whose tourney buy-in dwarfs his bankroll? JC Tran wasn't exactly irate over the situation, so why should the OP? Killing "the integrity of the game". Are you serious??? The AP situation kills the integrity of the game. This at most [censored] on it. More of a crop-dusting really . . . 2)Ok, so I only had one question. 3)More of a statement, than a question. OP, in your straight flush hand, the villain's hand was tabled in that he threw his cards - face up, mind you, onto the table. Yes, his intent was to muck. Yes, the mfing dickbag at the other end of the table needs to keep his mouth shut since it's not his hand. His cards are still live until the dealer turns them face down and places/mixes (in some casinos, aka my .25/.50 nl home game) them in the muck. [/ QUOTE ] Listen very carefully. I understand what the ruling is. However, if this ruling (in place to prevent collusion) which can be EASILY be taken advantage of by those colluding, causes the villain to be awarded the pot, after having his cards hit the muck, it is disgraceful. Where is the differential between an all-in event in a cash game or a donkament that requires separate rulings? IMFHO, anyone who decides having their cards hit the muck, for WHATEVER reason, is more important to them than letting the cards read, deserves them to lose their right to the given pot and is MUCH more important than flipping cards up in every donkament all-in event to prevent "collusion". If a player wanted to collude, there are any number of ways to work out dumping a stack without turning up the cards. That is a pathetic excuse for allowing this [censored] to happen. If not, then why the [censored] have the 'cards hit the muck they're dead rule' at [censored]ing all?
|
|
#79
11-08-2007, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
OP should get a life and stop posting silly things like this.
Cardplayer airs this and calls it "contraversial" because a well known pro was involved and they need to find something interesting to report on in a boring tourny game to make the report meaningful. Anyone with 1/2 brain understands that there is nothing contraversial about the ruling and you can give JC credit for at least 1/2 a brain so he doesn`t protest much. It`s just slightly annoying to see an idiot win chips but that`s a common sight in donkaments.
|
|
#80
11-08-2007, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
. If a player wanted to collude, there are any number of ways to work out dumping a stack without turning up the cards. That is a pathetic excuse for allowing this [censored] to happen. [/ QUOTE ] Please, OP, explain to me in the next 5 minutes 3 ways to accomplish this. I'm just not following you.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
