I didn't protect my hand so I'll just play two random cards

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was sort of skimming and made up my own story involving the floor ruling the raise to $54 as binding with the guy getting no cards, the 87s calling and the board coming AKQT9 for a chop.

[/ QUOTE ]

you wanna talk a bad beat... how pissed would you be as the 87s guy. that's awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? A bad beat is when you put your money in with the best of it and get a bad result.

If you're holding an 8 high (which is -EV against 2 random cards if you both see the river) and someone offers to give you $12 in place of running the hands, you should obviously take it.

This guy had the option and instead decided to run the hands. He lost, which was the most likely result. It was bad play, not a bad beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may try reading the posts you reply to. It helps a lot. This was a situation where 87s was taking on THE BOARD, which I haven't PokerStoved, but I thiiiink is +EV for the 87s.

OBV in the OP, the guy with 87s is a GIANT MORON.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

If you're holding an 8 high (which is -EV against 2 random cards if you both see the river) and someone offers to give you $12 in place of running the hands, you should obviously take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. The BB did not have a hand. $6 limpers, $12 raise by the 87, and the $3 blinds. If I'm the 87, it's "Give me $21 and let's move on to the next hand or I call your raise, you have no hand, and I win your remaining stack." The 87s had all the power, why should he even consider the BB's offer?

Even looking at it from what happened:
$42 for 87h to call
...pot becomes total of $115 ( 2*54 + $6 from limpers + $1 sb)
87s is 47.936% vs random two cards.
$115 * .47936 = $55.12
$55.12 - $42 call = $13.13 "profit" vs $12 "profit" taking his $12 back.

[Mano]

The 87s guy is obviously a moron, but couldn't he have insisted that the all-in guy's raise stands and his hand is either dead, or at least fouled and he can only play the board? I learned the hard way to protect my hand when I built a big pot while having the nuts, but somehow only had one card at showdown. Seems like a bad decision by floor. Can Randy explain what the correct ruling would be?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like a bad decision by floor.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
and the floor seems downright relieved and says if these two guys want to do this, it's fine with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

ie, it was a "non-decision".

[bav]

One person at the table admitted the Kh was in her hand, and no she didn't have the Jh. So what the guy without cards got really was two randomish cards. (Two kings came on the board which is why the topic of whose king it was came up.)

How could a dealer do this? Well, that topic also came up. Nobody saw the cards disappear and the dealer was really perplexed and apologetic...the cards disappeared from the 5-seat. He said he'd never in his life swept away cards from in front of him like that, but admitted that yeah, he'd snagged cards from the 1-seat and 10-seat a couple times. People ask if the $54 dude had the cards tucked against the rail or were they out in the middle and $54 said they were RIGHT HERE!

So 10 minutes later Mr$54 is all-in again, this time with his $110, or so. And woosh...his cards ALMOST go away again as the same dealer is sweeping away the cruft. And we all see exactly where they were; they were sitting out well past the yellow line at least a foot from the rail. AHAH!

As for "couldn't he have insisted that the all-in guy's raise stands"... no player gets to insist on anything. The floor will make whatever ruling the floor thinks is right. In this case, were *I* on the floor and had the players not decided to resolve this their own way, I woulda taken $12 from Mr.$54's stack, given him back $42 and pushed the pot to the $12 raiser. Yes, that's a little unfair to the $2 limpers who've already folded, but it's more unfair to the guy without cards to insist he hand over $54 to a player who hasn't even said "call" yet. But yeah, you may find a floor willing to do that.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]


You may try reading the posts you reply to. It helps a lot. This was a situation where 87s was taking on THE BOARD, which I haven't PokerStoved, but I thiiiink is +EV for the 87s.

OBV in the OP, the guy with 87s is a GIANT MORON.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except he didn't run it against the board. There was no way floor was going to let that happen when the situation arose as a result of a dealer mistake. You're in fantasy land.

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
Except he didn't run it against the board. There was no way floor was going to let that happen when the situation arose as a result of a dealer mistake. You're in fantasy land.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

The posts you were replying to:

"I was sort of skimming and made up my own story involving the floor ruling the raise to $54 as binding with the guy getting no cards, the 87s calling and the board coming AKQT9 for a chop."

and immediately following, and obv referring to the above:

"you wanna talk a bad beat... how pissed would you be as the 87s guy. that's awesome. "

NO ONE CALLED THE ACTUAL HAND A BAD BEAT FOR 87s.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except he didn't run it against the board. There was no way floor was going to let that happen when the situation arose as a result of a dealer mistake. You're in fantasy land.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

The posts you were replying to:

"I was sort of skimming and <b>made up my own story involving the floor ruling the raise to $54 as binding with the guy getting no cards, the 87s calling and the board coming AKQT9 for a chop. </b>"

and immediately following, and obv referring to the above:

"you wanna talk a bad beat... how pissed would you be as the 87s guy. that's awesome. "

NO ONE CALLED THE ACTUAL HAND A BAD BEAT FOR 87s.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nice.

Done wasting your time yet? Or do you have it in you to produce another ungrammatical and incoherent post full of random HTML tags?

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except he didn't run it against the board. There was no way floor was going to let that happen when the situation arose as a result of a dealer mistake. You're in fantasy land.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

The posts you were replying to:

"I was sort of skimming and <b>made up my own story involving the floor ruling the raise to $54 as binding with the guy getting no cards, the 87s calling and the board coming AKQT9 for a chop. </b>"

and immediately following, and obv referring to the above:

"you wanna talk a bad beat... how pissed would you be as the 87s guy. that's awesome. "

NO ONE CALLED THE ACTUAL HAND A BAD BEAT FOR 87s.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nice.

Done wasting your time yet? Or do you have it in you to produce another ungrammatical and incoherent post full of random HTML tags?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's amazing that you are a douchebag in every thread you post in. I had 2 HTML tags that were using <> rather than [], omg what a retard. I also love that you attack my post for being "ungrammatical" when the only possible part is the part linking the two posts. Why don't you reread the posts again rather than worrying about the grammar? You were so indignant in your initial response that the actual hand where 87s lost to KJs was NOT a bad beat, and now that it's been shown that no one said that outside of your deranged mind, you find something else to be a [censored] about.

Why don't you blather more about how Stu Ungar would win 30% of the large field tourneys of today?

[AKQJ10]

Oh boy. Arguing whether a random comment applied to the OP or a counterfactual hypothetical based on the OP. What compelling reading for the other 9998 of us.