|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Div III: 2 vs. 7 | |||
| Escape From Alcatraz |
   
|
74 | 94.87% |
| Joe Kidd |
  
|
4 | 5.13% |
| Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
07-09-2007, 09:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another \"who gets kicked in the nutz\"
[ QUOTE ]
...and the inexperienced player tries to flip up his cards but only the already exsposed queen gets flipped up, and both cards end up in the middle. [/ QUOTE ] Normally I agree with the One Player To A Hand crowd but in this case, the inexperienced player tried to showdown his hand. It wouldn't have mattered one way or the other what anyone said at that point nor would it have mattered if the cards were turned over or not. I give the dealer extra credit here for not burying the cards in the muck and for not treating the hand as live either. The Dealer knew that the Floor was going to make the decision and wanted to preserve the hand in case the Floor ruled for the new guy. I believe that the Floor's ruling may have been technically correct but I don't like it. I think the guy with the 2 should give up the pot every time (I would have - and we wouldn't have needed the Floor either). 
|
|
#32
07-09-2007, 09:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another \"who gets kicked in the nutz\"
[ QUOTE ]
I do not have to sit idle and watch as a new player gets screwed by rules nits. Anyone trying to win the pot this way is simply a low-life cheat in my book. Sputter away at me all you like, but I'm gonna open my mouth every time I see something like this happen at a game with n00bies. [/ QUOTE ] BAV for President! BAV is right.
|
|
#33
07-09-2007, 09:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another \"who gets kicked in the nutz\"
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Op is fine because this is a showdown and the action is over. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No this is the wrong reason. A player may not tell another player to table his hand just because it is showdown. However OP doesn't get a kick in the nuts here because he didn't speak until it was clear that the player was trying to table his hand. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No sir. It is a showdown, and the "one player to a hand" rule no longer applies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where is that written? Cards don't speak until they are tabled. One card isn't "cards". [/ QUOTE ] Reading comprehension? The Villian only turned over one card and the Noob only turned over one card. Why does the Noob get screwed? If I read the OP correctly the Noob is the only trying to table a hand. How can the Villian's single card be live if the Noob's isn't?
|
|
#34
07-09-2007, 10:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another \"who gets kicked in the nutz\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Op is fine because this is a showdown and the action is over. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No this is the wrong reason. A player may not tell another player to table his hand just because it is showdown. However OP doesn't get a kick in the nuts here because he didn't speak until it was clear that the player was trying to table his hand. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No sir. It is a showdown, and the "one player to a hand" rule no longer applies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where is that written? Cards don't speak until they are tabled. One card isn't "cards". [/ QUOTE ] Reading comprehension? The Villian only turned over one card and the Noob only turned over one card. Why does the Noob get screwed? [/ QUOTE ] Because he inadvertently mucked his hand. [ QUOTE ] If I read the OP correctly the Noob is the only trying to table a hand. How can the Villian's single card be live if the Noob's isn't? [/ QUOTE ] Once the Noob "mucked" his hand the villain tecnically doesn't have to show both of his cards.
|
|
#35
07-09-2007, 10:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another \"who gets kicked in the nutz\"
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Op is fine because this is a showdown and the action is over. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No this is the wrong reason. A player may not tell another player to table his hand just because it is showdown. However OP doesn't get a kick in the nuts here because he didn't speak until it was clear that the player was trying to table his hand. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No sir. It is a showdown, and the "one player to a hand" rule no longer applies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where is that written? Cards don't speak until they are tabled. One card isn't "cards". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reading comprehension? The Villian only turned over one card and the Noob only turned over one card. Why does the Noob get screwed? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because he inadvertently mucked his hand. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I read the OP correctly the Noob is the only trying to table a hand. How can the Villian's single card be live if the Noob's isn't? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once the Noob "mucked" his hand the villain tecnically doesn't have to show both of his cards. [/ QUOTE ] He didn't muck, the floor ruled his hand dead.
|
|
#36
07-09-2007, 10:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another \"who gets kicked in the nutz\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Op is fine because this is a showdown and the action is over. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No this is the wrong reason. A player may not tell another player to table his hand just because it is showdown. However OP doesn't get a kick in the nuts here because he didn't speak until it was clear that the player was trying to table his hand. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No sir. It is a showdown, and the "one player to a hand" rule no longer applies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where is that written? Cards don't speak until they are tabled. One card isn't "cards". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reading comprehension? The Villian only turned over one card and the Noob only turned over one card. Why does the Noob get screwed? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because he inadvertently mucked his hand. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I read the OP correctly the Noob is the only trying to table a hand. How can the Villian's single card be live if the Noob's isn't? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once the Noob "mucked" his hand the villain tecnically doesn't have to show both of his cards. [/ QUOTE ] He didn't muck, the floor ruled his hand dead. [/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately it was ruled that he did muck. From the OP: [ QUOTE ] ... and the inexperienced player tries to flip up his cards but only the already exsposed queen gets flipped up, and both cards end up in the middle. [/ QUOTE ] From Robert's Rules: Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management's discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player. I think this should have been ruled a live hand "in the best interests of the game" but it wasn't.
|
|
#37
07-10-2007, 04:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another \"who gets kicked in the nutz\"
[ QUOTE ]
One player to a hand doesn't apply at the showdown, cards speak. [/ QUOTE ] Your statement, as written, literally, is incorrect. One player to a hand absolutely extends to not telling a player to turn over his cards at showdown. After all, he might not decide to do so if left alone. Your intention, rather than your statement, may be appropriate. That is, it's permissible to say to a player, "Only a player may turn over his cards at showdown, no one else other than the floor may do so." It is not permissible to just say, "Turn over your cards." I understand that you're writing about an incident with two players showing only one card each. However, you have to expect us to react to what you've written, and what you've actually written, if interpreted literally, is just plain wrong.
|
|
#38
07-10-2007, 07:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another \"who gets kicked in the nutz\"
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you're writing about an incident with two players showing only one card each. However, you have to expect us to react to what you've written, and what you've actually written, if interpreted literally, is just plain wrong. [/ QUOTE ] I expect you to react in the context of the OP. Taking statements out of context is unreasonable under normal circumstances and I know it is an optimistic approach but I expect members of this forum to be reasonable.
|
|
#39
07-10-2007, 07:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another \"who gets kicked in the nutz\"
Floor were being dillweeds in this hand, he was showing both his cards, he knew he had 2 beat and just happened to "fumble" cards, if I was kid I would have argued that so hard and if I didn't win would of left right away.
|
|
#40
07-10-2007, 09:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another \"who gets kicked in the nutz\"
The real lesson here, is don't get cute at showdown,
or at the poker tables, for that matter. A buddy of mine once had a dealer mistake his mumbled "all-l-l-l in!!" for "fol-l-l-ld", grab his cards and whisk them into the muck. Thaaat little misqueue happened on the bubble at a tourney. Since then, he uses a card protector, and speaks a lot clearer.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
