You Make The Call

[atrainpsu]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit to add: I forgot to mention that we felt that if we had awarded BB any part of the pot he would have been beaten to a pulp by MP.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like MP got the best deal because he made physical threats. I guess I can see how this would affect things, but it doesn't make it right.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that was affected by the flashing of the card was whether the button called the 2 allins on the river. MP would have lost the main pot either way. To give him part of the main pot seems absurd.

It seems reasonable for BB to either pay the button the amount that he would have won in the side pot ($400) or forfeit the main pot to the button, whichever was less.

I'm guessing the main pot was over $400, so I think it should have gone down like this.
MP loses his $100 on the river and whatever else he put in previously. Button loses the $100 on the river and whatever else he put in previously. BB wins the main pot, which he still deserves to win. Now instead of MP paying button the $400 for the side pot, BB has to pay that instead.

This solution was the best case scenario for MP (if button had called him anyway, he would have gone broke), the best case scenario for button (if he had called MP anyway, he would have won $400 in the side pot), and BB pays a penalty for screwing up the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that MP deserves to get the "best case scenario." He did have the worst hand and having played with these guys long enough I am 90% certain that button would have called anyways. IMO, MP gets some protection because of that 10% uncertainty.

I also have a strong belief that only the money in play should be awarded and people shouldn't be required to take money from their pockets to pay off. With only $140 in the pot BB, under your solution would have had to pay out another $260 or so.

[atrainpsu]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think that MP deserves to get the "best case scenario." He did have the worst hand and having played with these guys long enough I am 90% certain that button would have called anyways. IMO, MP gets some protection because of that 10% uncertainty.

[/ QUOTE ]
you're solution gave him half of the money in the pot, which is more than some protection
[ QUOTE ]

I also have a strong belief that only the money in play should be awarded and people shouldn't be required to take money from their pockets to pay off. With only $140 in the pot BB, under your solution would have had to pay out another $260 or so.

[/ QUOTE ] Under my solution the pot was $100*3 + whatever was in the pot before the river. If this was somehow less than $400, then the BB gives the button whatever the size of the pot was.

The idea behind my solution, is everything plays out the same except for the action that needed protection. We nullify the side pot, since it wasn't fair to the MP player. Then BB pays the button what the button would have won from MP in the side pot.

Edit For more clarity:
say the pot size was $100 going into the river.
I would interpret the action as:
BB bets $100 (all-in), MP calls $100, Button calls $100.
BB wins $400 with quads.

BB pays button $400 for compromising the action for the side pot. MP saves $400 because the action for the side pot was compromised.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't have any written rules but because we've been playing together for so long we all have a "baseline" of what is proper etiquette and we are all experienced poker players and it was clear to us that BB crossed the line by quite a bit. After separating BB from the other 2 (the button was also furious because he expected to get paid) and getting him into another room for his protection we all sat down and discussed the action and here's what we came up with:

BB was forced to forfeit his hand and all the money he put in. Button and MP split the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why I don't play home games for significant money. Downright ridiculous "solution".

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I don't play home games for significant money. Downright ridiculous "solution".

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to agree. Rottersod, you seem like a reasonable guy and you were the one facing the situation, but this solution does look really weird and I'm uncomfortable about some of it being based on stuff like threats of violence.

[Khabbi]

[ QUOTE ]
I forgot to mention that we felt that if we had awarded BB any part of the pot he would have been beaten to a pulp by MP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with other posters, this "reason" is certainly a concern for me. Who is this psycho that you guys play with? Are the stakes too high for this guy that he has to resort to violence and threats when he loses a pot with the worst hand against 2 other players?

I'd be glad MP doesn't feel like coming back. In fact, if I were the host, I'd make sure he never did come back. It sounds like he's bad for the game and can't afford to lose the money anyway.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why I don't play home games for significant money. Downright ridiculous "solution".

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to agree. Rottersod, you seem like a reasonable guy and you were the one facing the situation, but this solution does look really weird and I'm uncomfortable about some of it being based on stuff like threats of violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it wasn't just me facing the situation. There were 9 of us there that night and we all had an equal say in things except for the 3 involved in the hand.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We don't have any written rules but because we've been playing together for so long we all have a "baseline" of what is proper etiquette and we are all experienced poker players and it was clear to us that BB crossed the line by quite a bit. After separating BB from the other 2 (the button was also furious because he expected to get paid) and getting him into another room for his protection we all sat down and discussed the action and here's what we came up with:

BB was forced to forfeit his hand and all the money he put in. Button and MP split the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why I don't play home games for significant money. Downright ridiculous "solution".

[/ QUOTE ]

The money wasn't that significant. It wasn't like an extra $400 was going to break anyone and everyone seems OK with the ruling - even BB who hasn't complained. MP is upset just because of GP (general principles for those of you who are acronym challenged), but he really did get a good deal. I posted this here because I wanted to see if we completely missed something obvious but it doesn't look like we did.

Thanks for everyone's replies.

RS

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I forgot to mention that we felt that if we had awarded BB any part of the pot he would have been beaten to a pulp by MP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with other posters, this "reason" is certainly a concern for me. Who is this psycho that you guys play with? Are the stakes too high for this guy that he has to resort to violence and threats when he loses a pot with the worst hand against 2 other players?

I'd be glad MP doesn't feel like coming back. In fact, if I were the host, I'd make sure he never did come back. It sounds like he's bad for the game and can't afford to lose the money anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you like to play poker in a sterile environment? Some of like games that are edgier and can handle table talk and loudmouths. Violence isn't tolerated but almost anything short of it would be acceptable as long as the guy who threatens it realizes we outnumber him. Anyways, I think you are making too big a deal out of that part of it. I just added it in to spice things up a bit. It wasn't really a huge factor in our decisions that night.

[Grasshopp3r]

I would never come back if the player who threatened violence was not publicly banned. Your precedent is now to make threats of violence to win. Why bother with the poker and just host fight night?

Flashing cards while still in a hand did affect the button's call, but what would you rule if the button folded?

I would award the BB the main pot and the button the side pot. I would then cash out the BB. If the MP threatens violence, I would tell him to leave and/or call the cops. MP is permabanned. BB may be temp or permabanned, too.