|
|
#111
11-13-2007, 08:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Canterbury drama last night
canterbury should try as hard as they can to get 100 200 so i can take more of schneids' money in a heads up match
|
|
#112
11-13-2007, 08:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury drama last night
[ QUOTE ]
canterbury should try as hard as they can to get 100 200 so i can take more of schneids' money in a heads up match [/ QUOTE ] Please stay on topic you know that is never going to happen (100/200+ in MN, or you beating me HU).
|
|
#113
11-13-2007, 08:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury drama last night
the phone on the drink thing has been a rule since the phone rule.
theyve called me out on having my phone open on that thing many times. its [censored] annoying if you are in the middle of a text. however it isnt a weird ruling, its standard from my experience.
|
|
#114
11-13-2007, 08:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury drama last night
[ QUOTE ]
the phone on the drink thing has been a rule since the phone rule. theyve called me out on having my phone open on that thing many times. its [censored] annoying if you are in the middle of a text. however it isnt a weird ruling, its standard from my experience. [/ QUOTE ] The point is it SHOULDN'T be standard. It's ridiculous. Illogical. Unnecessary. As are many other "rules" that are enforced daily at Canterbury.
|
|
#115
11-13-2007, 08:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury drama last night
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] the phone on the drink thing has been a rule since the phone rule. theyve called me out on having my phone open on that thing many times. its [censored] annoying if you are in the middle of a text. however it isnt a weird ruling, its standard from my experience. [/ QUOTE ] The point is it SHOULDN'T be standard. It's ridiculous. Illogical. Unnecessary. As are many other "rules" that are enforced daily at Canterbury. [/ QUOTE ] this is indeed the case, but its still the best ran cardroom ive ever player in (vegas, commerce, etc). just wish it could match the action.
|
|
#116
11-13-2007, 08:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury drama last night
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] the phone on the drink thing has been a rule since the phone rule. theyve called me out on having my phone open on that thing many times. its [censored] annoying if you are in the middle of a text. however it isnt a weird ruling, its standard from my experience. [/ QUOTE ] The point is it SHOULDN'T be standard. It's ridiculous. Illogical. Unnecessary. As are many other "rules" that are enforced daily at Canterbury. [/ QUOTE ] this is indeed the case, but its still the best ran cardroom ive ever player in (vegas, commerce, etc). just wish it could match the action. [/ QUOTE ] I'd prefer to mix the Commerce flexibility/players first mantra with Canterbury's lack of dealer/player abuse toleration.
|
|
#117
11-13-2007, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury drama last night
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] the phone on the drink thing has been a rule since the phone rule. theyve called me out on having my phone open on that thing many times. its [censored] annoying if you are in the middle of a text. however it isnt a weird ruling, its standard from my experience. [/ QUOTE ] The point is it SHOULDN'T be standard. It's ridiculous. Illogical. Unnecessary. As are many other "rules" that are enforced daily at Canterbury. [/ QUOTE ] To illustrate the point further: BK and I play HU. He busts me so I have $4 left in front of me. We discuss if we wanna play more or quit, and decide I am going to make a phone call to some people to see what the online action is like at the moment. I remain seated at the table while dialing, and am told that I must get out of the seat and stand behind the table if I want to make the call. There is one person at the table with chips in front of them, no cards are being dealt, no hands are being played or are about to be played. How is making me stand behind the table preventing the appearance of collusion or accomplishing anything positive for anyone involved? Or an even simpler example of that, I was playing someone HU. He got a call in the middle of a hand and answered his phone. This was in the very infancy of this no-phone rule so I figure "ok it's really no big deal to me if he talks on the phone or not," and I tell the dealer, "honestly, I don't care if he's on the phone or not; since I'm the only one at the table, is it okay if we let him stay on the phone if he wants?" Nope. It's these type of common sense, no-brain, total-rigidness ways that have to be looked at a little closer IMO, especially with a new card club looming.
|
|
#118
11-13-2007, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury drama last night
[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I've always felt that Canterbury has sort of been a nanny state. The phone rule has always pissed me off. I understand the reasoning but they have been way too draconian in their enforcement of it. I am looking forward to the new room. Hopefully they'll have the old $4 max rake and put some pressure on Canterbury to return to their former glory. [/ QUOTE ] In general I like most things about Canterbury but agree that the new room will put more pressure on CP to be more player friendly if they don't want to loose a lot of business. Also if the new place starts with the $4 max rake they will have another huge selling point. No more monopoly for CP will be a great thing for all MN players.
|
|
#119
11-13-2007, 12:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury drama last night
4$ rake? 3$ rake is industry standard. 5$ rake is ridiculous.
|
|
#120
11-13-2007, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury drama last night
where is $3 rake still the standard?
I agree the cell-phone rules sound pretty silly. But I also don't think it should be that necessary to talk on the phone at the table. Not the end of the world to step away and actually MISS a hand or two to make a call. I always do this courtesy when I'm making or receiving a call even in rooms where I am perfectly allowed to remain in my seat and continue playing. But I just step away from the table and get dealt-out because I think it's more appropriate.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
