|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: plan? | |||
| flat-call |
   
|
2 | 3.13% |
| 4-bet to $1.15 |
  
|
43 | 67.19% |
| shove |
  
|
16 | 25.00% |
| BASTARD |
  
|
2 | 3.13% |
| I'M IN YER POLL PICKIN YER OPTIONS |
  
|
1 | 1.56% |
| Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
11-09-2007, 06:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
JC Tran controversy poll
I'm going to make it as simple as possible. I want to get an idea of the #s on each side of this debate.
We all now know that the tournament ruling with JC Tran at Foxwoods was the "correct" ruling, according to the current guidelines. The question is.... Which is more important to you? The actual "rule" itself, which is currently in place to prevent collusion, and is easily avoidable by those who may decide to collude. Or, holding these people who decide to muck their hand while it is still live accountable. Maintaining the integrity of this game so that we will never see another player awkwardly pulling back their cards from the muck and simultaneously jamming their chips in the pot while we all shake our heads, because we ALL know the player has folded his hand. Choose which you believe is BETTER for the integrity of this game... 
|
|
#6
11-09-2007, 07:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran controversy poll
I dunno whats worse, the fact i read the first 100 replies to the other thread or that i came here expecting more.
The rules are the rules are the rules. The rule DOES work. In fact, for you or JC to claim the hand should be dead is angle shooting in its purest form. Ive never heard of anyone ruling that you can muck in a tourney when you get all in with streets still to be dealt - and if they have they need a swift kick in the nuts. This is NOT a debate. There is a rule. The rule was followed. The right outcome happened.
|
|
#8
11-09-2007, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran controversy poll
[ QUOTE ]
I dunno whats worse, the fact i read the first 100 replies to the other thread or that i came here expecting more. The rules are the rules are the rules. The rule DOES work. In fact, for you or JC to claim the hand should be dead is angle shooting in its purest form. Ive never heard of anyone ruling that you can muck in a tourney when you get all in with streets still to be dealt - and if they have they need a swift kick in the nuts. This is NOT a debate. There is a rule. The rule was followed. The right outcome happened. [/ QUOTE ] agree in every single word. It was just an unfortunate outcome for the hand. Note that it should be different in cash games
|
|
#9
11-09-2007, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran controversy poll
Poll results are very interesting. While obv a small sample, it is an educated one. Actual players of the game who know enough about the topic at hand to make a thoughtful vote.
I really don't know why some of you seem to take this so personally. There is clearly (look at the poll #s and the posts on the longer thread) an argument here for whether or not the current rule is the most valuable for the sake of this game. If you're plan on posting a response to reiterate the current rule itself as it pertains to the JC Tran incident, save it. This thread is to discuss the what is best for the integrity of the game, not the ruling in that specific instance.
|
|
#10
11-09-2007, 09:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran controversy poll
The integrity of the game? Yeah, it's best to let neophytes get angled out of a pot. That should keep the suckers in the game.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
