blonde poker forum

2/5 game at local. I'm not playing but a huge fuss kicks off.

There's around 800 in the middle on the river of a 4 heart paired board. Player 1 has lead out for £600.

Drunk guy stares him down playing around 1250 announces loudly "RAISE" after a few seconds he laughs and says "just kidding" and tries to muck his hand. Dealer stops him and states he has to raise. Drunk guy argues that he didn't realise. Floor is called and state he has to min raise. Player grabs his chips and refuses to put them on the pot. Floor states if he doesn't put chips in he will be asked to leave to which player 2 says fine. Player 1 says whoa whoa whoa what about the £600?

Do the casino force the chips out of his hand? What happens of he just ups and leave with a the chips? Should the casino make good the money player 1 has lost?

Shouldn't Player One be saying " What about the £1200 ? " ( as in min raise )

Yeh that's what I meant

Ok

House /Casino security needed to take £1200 in my opinion.

Sounds like straight up stealing to me. What would the casino have done if the guy had of slid £1,200 onto a high stakes roulette table and then after no more bets are announced said "nahh im only joking" and pulled off the £1,200? Guarantee security would have been called and he would have been forced to hand over the £1,200 (Unless his number some how came in). I feel like because its a punter this guy is stealing from the casino is much more likely to let the £1,200 slide. He should have been pretty much forced to hand over the £1,200 as its the same as him going up to someone's stack and picking up as many chips as he can and then running off.

Should be an expensive lesson for the drunk guy, imo.

i think the reality of what will happen is as follows.  He will have two options

1 - To pay £1200 to raise and stay in the game/casino

2 - Refuses to pay the raise of £1200 and be barred from the Casino/poker games for life in that casino.

 I would imagine one of those would have occurred highly likely (2).  It's wrong because if the same £1200 bet was placed on a roulette table and he tried to grab it back when he didn't like the outcome the pit boss would force him to hand over the money but that's how casino's operate.  They don't give a feck if it's not their money.  They have already hoovered their £10 rake for this pot whether the £1200 goes in or not and have nothing to gain selfishly.

You also have to remember the other guy wins the £800 pot if he refuses to raise, without showdown which might actually suit him as he might be bluffing with his £600 river bet and actually doesn't want the raise to stand.

And player 1 just loses out if he wants to leave?

He has physically removed his stack as well so how do u get him to put the money back?

When they guy asked to leave player 1 started to complain so let's assume he wants the raise to stand but yeh a few commented on that as it happened

player 1 wins £800 without showdown.  He doesn't lose out for sure as we don't know either of the hands so it might have saved him £1200 plus the £800 in the middle already.

Player 2 has to go cash chips in surely they can take the money there .

Or follow him to car park for a chat

I'd be very pissed off assuming like others say he want the call/ raise

Usual answer to this:

Did he say it as an angle shoot or just a very poorly judged drunk joke? If the latter, why enforce the rule that's there to prevent the former?

He's an idiot but he didn't mean at any point to raise.

Best course of action is to give him some encouragement to leave the game, give him his money - in full - and put a note on the system that, the next time he comes in (in a more sober state), to have a word about what happened. It would be, for example, a good idea to buy the other player a drink at the next opportunity, etc.

Forcing £600 out of his wallet is completely the wrong thing to do IMO.

That said, if he's done it before, if he's been warned about it that night or if there's some doubt about his motives, it's less black and white.

You have to remember that by refusing to raise he is giving up an £800 pot which he might have actually won (relatively unlikely but still possible if he was totally pissed).  So he can't call now for £600 so effectively there is a chance he has cost himself £1400 by saying 'raise' and refusing to go through with it instead of just calling.

Totally agree with this.

Similar thing happened to me. I had bet river for value and annoying prick/ loud drunk guy called by throwing one undersize chip in pot.

I showed my hand (over pair on paired board like j5573) and he mucked one card and showed the other - an irrelevant queen or some such. Important to bite that his mucked card absolutely hit the muck face down. Dealer then mucks his Queen and starts to award me pot. Loud drunk guy then claims his other card was a 5 and reaches for the muck to get them. He somehow retrieves a 5 from the muck (not his first pick...) and now dealer wants to award him the pot. I obv call floor who rules that you can't just look through the entire muck to have your pick of the cards.

Matey boy not happy and no won't put the rest of his call in.

Asked to leave and banned. Imagine similar here.

Tal is right.  He likely just doesn't understand that his statement is binding.   If the other player has called and the cards have been turned over it has to be ruled differently.  

Think it is very messy, but Tal is making the ruling that is best for the game.  Making players like this feel robbed and not want to come back can't be good for anyone in the long run.

drunks in casinos are just a pain
pretty sure the management have a responsibility to prevent stuff like this, and not allow people to play table games when they aren't in a position to know what they are doing.

The chips are the property of the casino, if he tries to leave with them they do whatever security do to shoplifters etc, while waiting for the police to come.

If it was really clearly a joke and he said it whilst mucking then I think its bad form of player1 to kick up a fuss about it.

I think this is straightforward. If you play a game you should abide by the rules. If you're ignorant of the rules or forget them well that's all part of the learning experience. I really don't see how or why Player 1 should suffer here. Sure Player 1 could've lost the pot but just as likely Player 1 has been grinding a table of sweaty boring regs all week just to pay the bills. This could be his biggest coup. And what? We say Player 1 doesn't get paid because it was a joke? Nah sorry, the drunk dude made a bet in a casino so he must pay. I mean it's not a rocket science skill to know a bet in a casino stands. And anyway taking advantage of mistakes is what games are all about so I don't like all this feeling sorry for people who make them.

I think if Player 2 is of small physical build Player 1 should follow him out of the casino and recover his funds by means of negotiation. If Player 2 is big or with several friends Player 1 should complain very loudly and suggest the casino should provide the game facilitator service he is paying for. 

this is horribly wrong it's not like it's some small preflop thing or etiquette thing where it's prudent to give a fair chance/warning to a new player, if he makes a bad call shall we give him that back too if he regrets it?


rules are rules and he's clearly trying to now angle shoot to get out of paying what he owes.

he will likely just take the ban and the casino will rofl and never pay money out to the player owed. we all know full well at a roulette table they'd have to pay up if they missed and if their number came in the casino will explain that they kindly let them remove their bet now gtfo the casino.


ppl in this thread misapplying rule 1 imo

Quite surprised at your opinions here guys  .....I'm all for the greater good of the game too but rules are rules and being drunk is no excuse

Titty Beat Me To it   :)

Question is if after saying 'Raise,' if the other guy snap mucked would he still say 'only joking' and give him the pot?  I doubt this.  Pay the man his money.  As for getting the money, slightly harder.  You can take it at the cash in desk if he tries to cash out to get back the rest which would be his money, but he's drunk and from OP it sounds like this is about £50 so me might forfeit this out of spite.  So then you have £1.2k of actual money behind the cash desk and a collection of plastic buttons in his pocket as he leaves.  There was a potential old wive's tale back in the day about it being illegal to take chips out of a casino as their are technically casino property.  I have no idea if this is true or not but would be a helpful way of getting the discs off of him in the car park if a few gentlemen, possibly taller than most who usually work the doorway area of said casino, explain it to him in those terms.

Either way, the actual money from the discs is behind the cash desk and can be paid out to the player quite easily.  However you'd have to put it in immediate play if he's continuing.

By the way if it's chips the casino 100% cash him up and allow him to leave. Seen it happen a few times.

yeh pretty sure they hold no liability/give zero fucks either way.

i'm normally the first one baying for rule 1 to be implemented but nah met not in this situation.

Hang on. Is the drunk guy Tittybeam?

Empty your pockets, son.

might be if the raise was to £6.40

Save it for the tape, sunshine.

(http://cache.boston.com/images/bostondirtdogs//Headline_Archives/BDD_vic-bad-cop_shield.jpg)

(I still stand by my earlier post btw, but it's only my opinion, horribly wrong or not)

i'm a massive proponent of rule 1 but this isn't the spot to enforce it.


where do you draw the line? it just opens up all the options in the world for angle shooting.

I don't need to draw any lines anywhere.

I explained the reasons for my view, including what I was relying on to reach my conclusion. I even ended by highlighting that, if there's more to it, it becomes less clear cut.

If a drunk bloke was, in my view, only doing the "I raise...no, only kidding!" thing as a joke and had clearly no intention to be doing anything as sophisticated as an angle shoot, I believe the best course of action is not to bind him to something he at no stage intended to do.

This doesn't sound like Ivan Freitez, tbh.

Clearly trying to angle shoot?  You in his head, or just guessing with the rest of us. Drunk recs are far more likely to angle shoot than the regs who have been there years?  Think it is very difficult as I said, and I'd really like to have been there to witness the timing etc.   Also the history is very important if one of the fellas in the hand has made a few crafty moves before, I would be far more likely to swag against them.  

I used to be very much rules are rules, but have mellowed as I have played the game more.  I think it can't be black/white here.

the dealer should be the one to make the decision obv as they have the most info.


as i've said, i'm always a massive proponent for rule 1, if it's not obvious enough for the dealer to pipe up then 100% he owes the pot.

Fold pre.

This is a really hard one.  As others have mentioned it's all about how it was said so very hard for the floor to make a ruling.

If it's "I raise"..........pause................"only kidding" then that would be binding to me. 

But if it's a clear joke all spoken at the same time then I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

Reminds me of that rio cash hand where the guy exposed accidentally 7 high or something and joked all in and they made it stand. That sounds 100% more innocent than this and he lost thousands from memory.

Yeh kinda agree with this. If guy is too pissed and just trying to enjoy himself  then it kinda deflects away from the purpose of playing poker - ' to have fun'. Sounds like he is too much of a degenerates to angle to his advantage. Maybe a warning would suffice.

When he said Raise it sounded genuine- probably a ten second gap before he said only kidding and tried to fold

Just depends on how smashed he was then. Cos he can just go into a daydream for 10 seconds.

If that is the case it should definitely stand then in my opinion.  People often bluff river and then instamuck when opponent says raise before hearing the amount so this seems an obvious attempt to angleshoot.

very very straightforward imo.

The drunk guy (providing no previous for angly behaviour and he was just drunkenly donking about) gets to fold, without putting any money in and told that if he does it again he will prolly be forced to raise.

forcing him to pay £1200 is totally wrong.

If he's got previous for angle-shooting then make him raise.

It's not really straightforward though I reckon. Very hard to make sets of rules to suit different interpretations of behaviours or motivations. Rules don't have to be abso black and white.

But they probably need to be based on actions rather than guesswork about motivations etc. unless we have a judge, jury and appropriate length trial every time someone needs to exercise a judgment about what's fair or not.

The fellow punter could ensure this happened if they wanted to, but otherwise the casino kinda has to follow the guidelines as best as they can.

sounds like I should play drunk more if you can just take back bets whenever you want under the label of bants.

edit does the same thinking apply if the guy hadn't been drinking?

I get the thought behind making him pay up but if he's a newbie/inexperienced then surely you want him to come back again? As the old saying goes 'You can shear a sheep many times but you can only skin it once'.

If you make him pay up now will he come back?

If he is a seasoned angle grinder then off with his head.

No way can he be allowed to say raise then after a 10 second gap say he was joking and fold.  I could be convinced if he insta says he is joking without there being any time for the bettor to snap fold but leaving 10 seconds that could be used to check for a reaction or see if the guy is going to fold before finding out how much then he has to be held to it.

I dont care how drunk/stupid he is, it doesnt even seem borderline for letting it slide, its way over the line.  Pay the man his money!

Not sure how the casino would handle that though, ideally security would take the £1200 from him and warn him about his future behavior in the casino.

its fairly obvious though if the guy is being drunk, or shooting angles. All you need is some decent people round the table and someone running trhe card room with a bit of common sense.

you cant rely on the last part though hence the need for rules!


<3 medium weak tho

if the guys clearly smashed you just say "listen pal, you might get forced to put £1200 in if you say raise when you dont mean it so watch yourself"

if the guys a slimeball and he isnt drunk and is pretending, said raise to get a reaction of the other player then make his decision based on that reaction then yeh, defo take his £1200 - I feel like my mum, who has never even watched a hand of poker in her life, would be able to make a pretty decent conclusion as to which it is...

if the guy is obviously smashed and doesn't know what he's doing, and the other guy in the pot forces him to put £1200 in then he's a total scumbag, imo.

ya obv should be a decision influenced heavily by the dealer.

still this is the reason why there are rules.

Other fella a complete scumbag slowroller for the ridiculous 10 second dwell before calling an effective all in? ;)

Seems a strange angle, given the other fella hadn't called him in the 10 esconds?  At the least he must have something to think about if he hasn't snapped?  I am not an expert angle shooter, but if I am angling here would I give up if he is taking his time to call?  Or does he say only joking as the other fella reaches for chips?

I don't know, I keep changing my mind, what happened?

Good question, doobs.

George, did you go back and apologise, once you'd sobered up?

So you give this guy his money back and then two hands later another guy pulls the same stunt and what? You say this guy has to pay because you don't like the cut of his jib? 

I think the Card Room Manager should be called over by the dealer to make a ruling which should be 'in the interests and fairness of the game', like all poker rulings should be that are made when there is a grey area or a dispute.

This is usually rule number 1 in all poker rules. Here is rule #1 of the TDA rules


1:   Floor Decisions
Floorpeople must consider the best interest of the game and fairness as top priorities in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floorperson’s decision is final.


Cheers Simon

I love all this "yeah, but where do you draw the line?" stuff.

Why is it so bad, instead of trying to find universal rules which cover every eventuality, to take each case on its merits and to try to do the right thing?

I know people like rules, but you don't have to argue that every decision "sets a dangerous precedent", that it "opens the floodgates" or that it "invites Johnny Anarchy to come into your house and defacate on your duvet".

What's wrong with being...nice?

If we are being nice shouldn't we ask the guy to leave before he does his money?

Not if he sat down with a ton.

You think because people have a different opinion to you it's because they are not nice or they think being nice is wrong. Cuckoo

the bulk of the information given to the floorperson should be from the dealer, allowing him to make an informed decision having rule1 at the  forefront of his thoughts as much as possible. obviously it wasn't clear enough (or someone wasn't happy with the decision) as this thread was created.  at any point where it isn't really obvious we have to stick to the rules that are designed to protect the integrity of the game rather than being nice for the sake of it.




exactly


edit we should probably also not bluff. or semi bluff.....

A few months back at DTD, a drunk bloke was on our cash table, and despite his level of inebriation he'd managed to accumulate a lot of chips, stacking people along the way.

He'd been re-raising with what appeared to be random all-ins that people called, but somehow he always had the better hand.

He'd been warned for slowing the game down as he wasn't always aware of what was going on. He'd also annoyed some of the players he'd stacked with his talking. The rest of us found him amusing, and also were waiting for our chance to win some of his stack.

Eventually, I flopped a set and he decided to shove over my bet and I snap called him. He said "oh, I didn't mean that" but he knew that his shove would stand. If he'd grabbed his chips and demanded he was joking and I'd then been told he didn't have to put his chips in,  then I'd have been annoyed as he'd have been free-rolling with his all-ins.

Phil Clarke was on the table as well, and this bloke had us both in tears of laughter with some of the things he'd said.

Don't remember asserting either, but, if it helps: no.

I have seen a few comments on here where the argument for enforcing the letter of the law is that, once the facts are changed slightly next time, it is much more difficult to be consistent.

My view is getting each decision as close to right as possible should be what matters most. Poker is a recreational pursuit, so what is "right" should generally align with what is "best for the game and the people in it".

It's just a different perspective. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Don't think ur being very nice there kin. You shudda said "Hey mate you better watch yourself with all these great jokes, take your money back and let me buy you a drink".

It would be nicer still if you got everyone to stand up and do the hokey cokey before the next hand is dealt just to celebrate how nice you are.

Might start playing some drunk cash games again if I can get away with this, it's been a while...  :D

I would have bought him a drink, but he'd been told he wasn't allowed any more ;)

Bit Unfair Nirvana

I have an opposite viewpoint to Tal on this matter but this is a healthy debate and yet again he has brought a well balanced argument to the table.

Mebs a mis read on my part but easy to read tal's post as implying a rules based approach wouldnt be 'nice.  Fwiw pretty imposs to make a fair judgement without being there. Fairness would be something im all in favour of but one mans fair is another mans unfair..which is why we tend to use rules in the absence of a judge and 12 good men. This isnt nice or not nice..its just practical'

  Totally Agree .

No.

Very, very simple, if its an honest, drunken mishap then you'd have to be a proper **** to take his £1200.

All this "this is the rules" etc is only really applicable morally if you sit the man down before he starts playing and explain every rule to him, and the difference between being "nice" here and being "nice" in telling him to leave before he sits down is that when he sits down smashed and punts around you're giving him a chance to win, whereas when you wait for him to do something donk cos he's smashed then throw the rulebook at him you're giving him zero chance to win.

Just about being a decent person really.

Think in an ideal world im with Dave however if I was player 1 in this hand I can understand why he's objecting. I'd also be gutted if the drunk then ended up stacking me later on in the night

I would never try to take the cash or ask for a ruling but the general question seemed to be more abou what the cardroom should do rather than our own moral compass

IMO the bolded part is key, and exactly what this means needs to be cleared up. 'A few seconds' is actually a pretty long time at a poker table. If he really did wait for a few seconds it is much more likely to be some sort of angle than if it was done 'in tempo'. But even if it definitely was not an intentional angle, if there really was a few seconds' delay before saying "just kidding" then Player 1 might have folded in that time, so the drunk guy would have gained something even if unintentionally. Player 1's interests need protecting as well as Player 2's, and allowing him to be reverse-freerolled is not a good thing even if this was done by accident.

Tbh this is the sort of thing that you need to be there to judge as it is very difficult to make a judgement unless you were there and so know the nuances of the situation. The 'good of the game' rule unfortunately requires skillful/experienced people to judge a situation whilst taking into account often highly nuanced and subtle variables and applying common sense. This is usually going to mean the dealer since he is the member of staff who witnessed the whole situation. Not every dealer has the requisite amount of experience/common sense/social intelligence to make a good and fair assessment.

If it genuinely was an honest drunken mistake then it seems fair to me to give the drunk the benefit of the doubt and allow him to retract his raise - and in this case he should also be stopped from playing for the rest of the night. But it is so difficult to judge the situation that I can sympathise with the guys who argue that rules are rules and they should be followed strictly here.

If it was genuinely drunken joke gone wrong then I think some leniency and common sense shud prevail and more often than not we as humans can tell if someone is larking about or not. Player 1 wud not of got paid anyway if the joker was not messin about as he would of just passed as he obv had no hand to call with, however as I think was mentioned earlier if he took 10 secs before declaring it a joke I fail to see how it can ever be a joke as would he have declared it a "joke" if player 1 mucked within that 10 secs ... I don't think so.

What if a min-raise is enough to put the bettor all in and when the drunk announces raise, the bettor snaps him off and now the drunk says he was joking and was folding.  Do we still let him take it back?

I know that didnt exactly happen and Im all for drunken debauchery at the tables but you need to protect the other player in the hand as well and if the drunk left enough time between announcing raise and taking it back that the other person could have acted or reacted in anyway then I think the raise has to stand otherwise the whole thing can become a farce

There was a Definate long enough pause for player 1 to muck

what was drunk guy doing during that time?  counting out chips for his 'raise'?

If I recall correctly he looked back his cards looked at his stack then the player and folded.

Yo, being there really helps make a solid ruling.

The dealer & floor who were there said the raise stands.

Internet heroes/wizards who were not there saying the raise should not stand.

What am I missing?

As I said higher up, as more info has come out I have changed my mind a few times.

Firstly the floor did say £1200, then the punishment became he had to leave, then the opponent asked for £600 on my reading.  Seems as confused about the right thing to do as I have been throughout this.

Everything Honeybadger said imo

For me, the raise has got to stand. Especially with the long pause and the fact that he was checking out his opponent. Not knowing the rules isn't really an excuse and being drunk is really irrelevant. Live and learn.

I thought that went without saying?

ldo

That makes a MASSIVE MASSIVE difference, should prolly stand in that case. I was under the impression it was more of a " action to him "RAISE" then insta muck his hand" sort of thing??????

It's prolly an angle


Pretty much this.

Yeh sorry was tough to explain. Was just interesting because I've never seen this happen before.

TBH I exaggerated the amounts. Player 1 bet 60 into 70 and player 2 was forced to raise until the table agreed to let him off

Just wanted opinion and thought making the monies meaningful would make it more interesting. Thanks all

Very nice gesture that the table all decided to let him off paying Player 1 his money. Player 1 must have been genuinely touched by the level of generosity on display at this table.

The people at the table who were there said the money should be refunded.

Internet heroes/wizards who were not there saying the money should be passed over.

What am I miissing?

The people at the table presumably wanted him to stick around.
I guess it wasn't because of his banter.

So nearly called the "big cash game in leicester" bluff sigh!

The point

 :D

I think when the dealer and the floor make a decision in a poker game it's really 'nice' for players not involved in the hand to be able to over-rule it. That sets a 'nice' precedent.