Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods

[sheetsworld]

I am still reeling from the fact that JC got bad beat.

sheets

[PlzHelpMe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a couple questions. Maybe Lee Jones can answer them:

1)Why is the OP so irate over this situation involving players whose tourney buy-in dwarfs his bankroll? JC Tran wasn't exactly irate over the situation, so why should the OP? Killing "the integrity of the game". Are you serious??? The AP situation kills the integrity of the game. This at most [censored] on it. More of a crop-dusting really . . .

2)Ok, so I only had one question.

3)More of a statement, than a question. OP, in your straight flush hand, the villain's hand was tabled in that he threw his cards - face up, mind you, onto the table. Yes, his intent was to muck. Yes, the mfing dickbag at the other end of the table needs to keep his mouth shut since it's not his hand. His cards are still live until the dealer turns them face down and places/mixes (in some casinos, aka my .25/.50 nl home game) them in the muck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen very carefully. I understand what the ruling is. However, if this ruling (in place to prevent collusion) which can be EASILY be taken advantage of by those colluding, causes the villain to be awarded the pot, after having his cards hit the muck, it is disgraceful. Where is the differential between an all-in event in a cash game or a donkament that requires separate rulings?

IMFHO, anyone who decides having their cards hit the muck, for WHATEVER reason, is more important to them than letting the cards read, deserves them to lose their right to the given pot and is MUCH more important than flipping cards up in every donkament all-in event to prevent "collusion". If a player wanted to collude, there are any number of ways to work out dumping a stack without turning up the cards. That is a pathetic excuse for allowing this [censored] to happen.

If not, then why the [censored] have the 'cards hit the muck they're dead rule' at [censored]ing all?

[/ QUOTE ]

your completely wrong.. there is no magical muck that cards touch killing a hand. In NLHE cash games if a hand is tabled face up cards speak not the players. It doesn't matter what the guy says although some places enforce a "you win" rule. Your saying If i table the nuts face up on the river after a guy calls me and it touches some area you consider the muck my hand is dead? In any casino cards always speak.

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. If a player wanted to collude, there are any number of ways to work out dumping a stack without turning up the cards. That is a pathetic excuse for allowing this [censored] to happen.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please, OP, explain to me in the next 5 minutes 3 ways to accomplish this. I'm just not following you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally I charge by the hour but....making numerous large bets and leaving yourself with essentially nothing, without being felted and mucking. Moving AI and purposely having your cards irreversibly mucked. Which could be explained as, I didn't want anyone to see what I had, but either way, who is going to prove for what reason anyone makes any bet...blah blah blah. The donkish nature of this particular reply is a DIRECT function of how foolish the original rule is in the first place. The whole idea of keeping the cards out of the muck, even if put there by the player's own will in order to "prevent collusion" is stretching it reaaaalllll thin.

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
If not, then why the [censored] have the 'cards hit the muck they're dead rule' at [censored]ing all?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mr. T]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the differential between an all-in event in a cash game or a donkament that requires separate rulings?


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that you would have to be pretty retarded to chip dump in a live cash game. Whereas going all in to chip dump in a tournament could be beneficial to the two involved.

[PlzHelpMe]

wow i was responding to your rediculous 1/2nl situation and i didn't even realize you were also the OP.

[X] IN BOTH HANDS FLOOR RULED CORRECTLY

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
wow i was responding to your rediculous 1/2nl situation and i didn't even realize you were also the OP.

[X] IN BOTH HANDS FLOOR RULED CORRECTLY

[/ QUOTE ]

This is honestly the last time I'm going to say it. I understand what the current rules are. HOWEVER, the theory behind them are simply, ridiculous.

As I have stated already numerous times in this thread why that is, I'm not going to keep posting the same thought process over and over. If you feel that the very avoidable security feature which this rule provides against collusion is more valuable to the integrity of the game, than a pot being awarded to a player who has every intention of folding his hand, up to and including physically placing the cards in the muck, then just wow. gl and gg

[Gobias Ind.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. If a player wanted to collude, there are any number of ways to work out dumping a stack without turning up the cards. That is a pathetic excuse for allowing this [censored] to happen.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please, OP, explain to me in the next 5 minutes 3 ways to accomplish this. I'm just not following you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally I charge by the hour but....making numerous large bets and leaving yourself with essentially nothing, without being felted and mucking. Moving AI and purposely having your cards irreversibly mucked. Which could be explained as, I didn't want anyone to see what I had, but either way, who is going to prove for what reason anyone makes any bet...blah blah blah. The donkish nature of this particular reply is a DIRECT function of how foolish the original rule is in the first place. The whole idea of keeping the cards out of the muck, even if put there by the player's own will in order to "prevent collusion" is stretching it reaaaalllll thin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really just wanted to waste a few more mins of your time. As for the second part of your statement, you cant muck your cards all-in in a tournament! When the AI is called, both hands are flipped face-up.

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow i was responding to your rediculous 1/2nl situation and i didn't even realize you were also the OP.

[X] IN BOTH HANDS FLOOR RULED CORRECTLY

[/ QUOTE ]

This is honestly the last time I'm going to say it. I understand what the current rules are. HOWEVER, the theory behind them are simply, ridiculous.

As I have stated already numerous times in this thread why that is, I'm not going to keep posting the same thought process over and over. If you feel that the very avoidable security feature which this rule provides against collusion is more valuable to the integrity of the game, than a pot being awarded to a player who has every intention of folding his hand, up to and including physically placing the cards in the muck, then just wow. gl and gg

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say that retrieving somebody's hand from the muck in a tourney is more detrimental to the integrity of the game than chip dumping?

[PlzHelpMe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow i was responding to your rediculous 1/2nl situation and i didn't even realize you were also the OP.

[X] IN BOTH HANDS FLOOR RULED CORRECTLY

[/ QUOTE ]

This is honestly the last time I'm going to say it. I understand what the current rules are. HOWEVER, the theory behind them are simply, ridiculous.

As I have stated already numerous times in this thread why that is, I'm not going to keep posting the same thought process over and over. If you feel that the very avoidable security feature which this rule provides against collusion is more valuable to the integrity of the game, than a pot being awarded to a player who has every intention of folding his hand, up to and including physically placing the cards in the muck, then just wow. gl and gg

[/ QUOTE ]

the two hands are completely different situations with different rules. Cards speak has nothing to do with collusion it has to do with the spirit of the game, and prevents certain angles.