Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[RED-DOG]

I chronicle some of my dog-awful plays at the poker table

OY!!

[Karabiner]

Good on you for doing the Honorable (im american now) thing in keeping your 3k in chips in the pot but i have to say that the guy with the ACES has played this really bad.

Why has he raised to 1200? he gives you the option of taking your 3k back. You have made a mistake acting out of turn in front of him so he should take advantage of your mistake. He should flat call the 400 then you have to leave your 3k in. If someone else decides to call or raise you he is able to reraise himself with the aces.

Assuming that the guy had just flat called meaning that Tony's raise to 3k then stood, would he then be permitted to re-raise if everyone else folded ?

And if he did would it be considered unethical ?

I was All-in Ralph, & the Guy was to my immediate right, so that scenario was not applicable.

I am, though, quite interested in the ethics/etiquette of the whole palaver. To me, it's simple. I made a balls up, & have to accept it. I don't know the Poker Rule here, but it just feels right to me.

To be honest, if Id known or realised I COULD have retracted my entire 3k, within the Rules, & etiquettely (?!), I probably would have been very tempted so to do.

Well you had genuinely made your move into an unraised pot, so if that scenario changed you were perfectly entitled to retract. Strange raise by your right hand side oppo. under the circumstances.

[tikay]

Good on you for doing the Honorable (im american now) thing in keeping your 3k in chips in the pot but i have to say that the guy with the ACES has played this really bad.

Why has he raised to 1200? he gives you the option of taking your 3k back. You have made a mistake acting out of turn in front of him so he should take advantage of your mistake. He should flat call the 400 then you have to leave your 3k in. If someone else decides to call or raise you he is able to reraise himself with the aces.

Assuming that the guy had just flat called meaning that Tony's raise to 3k then stood, would he then be permitted to re-raise if everyone else folded ?

And if he did would it be considered unethical ?

I was All-in Ralph, & the Guy was to my immediate right, so that scenario was not applicable.

I am, though, quite interested in the ethics/etiquette of the whole palaver. To me, it's simple. I made a balls up, & have to accept it. I don't know the Poker Rule here, but it just feels right to me.

To be honest, if Id known or realised I COULD have retracted my entire 3k, within the Rules, & etiquettely (?!), I probably would have been very tempted so to do.

Well you had genuinely made your move into an unraised pot, so if that scenario changed you were perfectly entitled to retract. Strange raise by your right hand side oppo. under the circumstances.

Yes, but it was only Unraised because I'd acted out of turn. So I had the advantage of knowing my hand was bad. Surely it's wrong to be able to retract that bet, given that I've obtained extra information by acting improperly? And HIS info had changed, & would now affect his play.

[tikay]

Good on you for doing the Honorable (im american now) thing in keeping your 3k in chips in the pot but i have to say that the guy with the ACES has played this really bad.

Why has he raised to 1200? he gives you the option of taking your 3k back. You have made a mistake acting out of turn in front of him so he should take advantage of your mistake. He should flat call the 400 then you have to leave your 3k in. If someone else decides to call or raise you he is able to reraise himself with the aces.

Assuming that the guy had just flat called meaning that Tony's raise to 3k then stood, would he then be permitted to re-raise if everyone else folded ?

And if he did would it be considered unethical ?

I was All-in Ralph, & the Guy was to my immediate right, so that scenario was not applicable.

I am, though, quite interested in the ethics/etiquette of the whole palaver. To me, it's simple. I made a balls up, & have to accept it. I don't know the Poker Rule here, but it just feels right to me.

To be honest, if Id known or realised I COULD have retracted my entire 3k, within the Rules, & etiquettely (?!), I probably would have been very tempted so to do.

Well you had genuinely made your move into an unraised pot, so if that scenario changed you were perfectly entitled to retract. Strange raise by your right hand side oppo. under the circumstances.

He was a very good Player, Simon Nowab told me after, a big Online Dude. I can't figure his 1,200 Bet though. That's not to say it was wrong though, I just can't figure it out. Perhaps he assumed I could retract?

[tikay]

I chronicle some of my dog-awful plays at the poker table

OY!!

Tell us about Jimmy Hotshot then.

[Karabiner]

Good on you for doing the Honorable (im american now) thing in keeping your 3k in chips in the pot but i have to say that the guy with the ACES has played this really bad.

Why has he raised to 1200? he gives you the option of taking your 3k back. You have made a mistake acting out of turn in front of him so he should take advantage of your mistake. He should flat call the 400 then you have to leave your 3k in. If someone else decides to call or raise you he is able to reraise himself with the aces.

Assuming that the guy had just flat called meaning that Tony's raise to 3k then stood, would he then be permitted to re-raise if everyone else folded ?

And if he did would it be considered unethical ?

I was All-in Ralph, & the Guy was to my immediate right, so that scenario was not applicable.

I am, though, quite interested in the ethics/etiquette of the whole palaver. To me, it's simple. I made a balls up, & have to accept it. I don't know the Poker Rule here, but it just feels right to me.

To be honest, if Id known or realised I COULD have retracted my entire 3k, within the Rules, & etiquettely (?!), I probably would have been very tempted so to do.

Well you had genuinely made your move into an unraised pot, so if that scenario changed you were perfectly entitled to retract. Strange raise by your right hand side oppo. under the circumstances.

He was a very good Player, Simon Nowab told me after, a big Online Dude. I can't figure his 1,200 Bet though. That's not to say it was wrong though, I just can't figure it out. Perhaps he assumed I could retract?

Perhaps it was a noble "help the aged" gesture, giving you the opportunity to save your bacon ?

[tikay]

Good on you for doing the Honorable (im american now) thing in keeping your 3k in chips in the pot but i have to say that the guy with the ACES has played this really bad.

Why has he raised to 1200? he gives you the option of taking your 3k back. You have made a mistake acting out of turn in front of him so he should take advantage of your mistake. He should flat call the 400 then you have to leave your 3k in. If someone else decides to call or raise you he is able to reraise himself with the aces.

Assuming that the guy had just flat called meaning that Tony's raise to 3k then stood, would he then be permitted to re-raise if everyone else folded ?

And if he did would it be considered unethical ?

I was All-in Ralph, & the Guy was to my immediate right, so that scenario was not applicable.

I am, though, quite interested in the ethics/etiquette of the whole palaver. To me, it's simple. I made a balls up, & have to accept it. I don't know the Poker Rule here, but it just feels right to me.

To be honest, if Id known or realised I COULD have retracted my entire 3k, within the Rules, & etiquettely (?!), I probably would have been very tempted so to do.

Well you had genuinely made your move into an unraised pot, so if that scenario changed you were perfectly entitled to retract. Strange raise by your right hand side oppo. under the circumstances.

He was a very good Player, Simon Nowab told me after, a big Online Dude. I can't figure his 1,200 Bet though. That's not to say it was wrong though, I just can't figure it out. Perhaps he assumed I could retract?

Perhaps it was a noble "help the aged" gesture, giving you the opportunity to save your bacon ?

Pfft.

[tikay]

A very sad loss.

The departure of favourite radio presenters always seems a bigger loss than TV presenters to me. I wonder if it's because radio listening is often a more solitary passtime than watching TV.

I always felt that Roger Scott was broadcasting just to me when I recorded his Sunday night Radio 1 show for listening in the car to and from work during the week and  really missed it after he died. I feel much the same way when listneing to Bob Harris's show.

For all the advances of satellite TV and other broadcasting media, radio is still really like an old friend and you can't beat it.

That's a great Post, & it's had me thinking all day.

I almost never watch TV - maybe an hour a month, Sport, Docu or Natural History, if I'm in a Hotel, but I never ever watch it at home. But I listen to the Radio - almost only Radio 4 - 20 to 25 hours per week. As you say, perhaps it's a solitary thing.

And we do get attached to Radio Presenters & Performers much more so than the TV peeps. (Rather Like NH v Flat Racing).

I shall so miss Humph, & I recall being devestated when John Peel - whom I only listened to, but never watched, (Home Truths, bestest Radio Show ever) passed away.

I loathed Nicholas Parsons on TV, but I'm protective of him on J-a-M - that must have been on Air 30 odd years already.

Roy Plumley, another so sadly missed. And who was that guy who did the "Today" prog every morning, & always got the time wrong?

I never missed the "Kenny & Cash" Show on Radio, on telly he was "ok", no more. It was even possible to like Noel Edmonds on Radio.

So many Radio "Greats" spring to mind. Billy Cotton, Gilbert Harding ("Down Your Way", a wonderful show), Wilfred Pickles, Winifred Atwell, Charlie Drake (pre-TV), Arthur Askey, still Presenting until quite recently. David Jacobs.

I'm happy to stick with Radio. If Ant & Dec, & Dale Winton et al are the best we can come up with on telly, Heaven help the minds & brains of the telly-watchers.

[kenjude]

And who was that guy who did the "Today" prog every morning, & always got the time wrong?

Brian Redhead?

[kinboshi]

A very sad loss.

The departure of favourite radio presenters always seems a bigger loss than TV presenters to me. I wonder if it's because radio listening is often a more solitary passtime than watching TV.

I always felt that Roger Scott was broadcasting just to me when I recorded his Sunday night Radio 1 show for listening in the car to and from work during the week and  really missed it after he died. I feel much the same way when listneing to Bob Harris's show.

For all the advances of satellite TV and other broadcasting media, radio is still really like an old friend and you can't beat it.

That's a great Post, & it's had me thinking all day.

I almost never watch TV - maybe an hour a month, Sport, Docu or Natural History, if I'm in a Hotel, but I never ever watch it at home. But I listen to the Radio - almost only Radio 4 - 20 to 25 hours per week. As you say, perhaps it's a solitary thing.

And we do get attached to Radio Presenters & Performers much more so than the TV peeps. (Rather Like NH v Flat Racing).

I shall so miss Humph, & I recall being devestated when John Peel - whom I only listened to, but never watched, (Home Truths, bestest Radio Show ever) passed away.

I loathed Nicholas Parsons on TV, but I'm protective of him on J-a-M - that must have been on Air 30 odd years already.

Roy Plumley, another so sadly missed. And who was that guy who did the "Today" prog every morning, & always got the time wrong?

I never missed the "Kenny & Cash" Show on Radio, on telly he was "ok", no more. It was even possible to like Noel Edmonds on Radio.

So many Radio "Greats" spring to mind. Billy Cotton, Gilbert Harding ("Down Your Way", a wonderful show), Wilfred Pickles, Winifred Atwell, Charlie Drake (pre-TV), Arthur Askey, still Presenting until quite recently. David Jacobs.

I'm happy to stick with Radio. If Ant & Dec, & Dale Winton et al are the best we can come up with on telly, Heaven help the minds & brains of the telly-watchers.

Hang on.  You only watch an hour of telly a month - so how do you know who presents what and how good they are?

[MANTIS01]

Tikay, ref: the all-in out of turn. if you play within the rules of the game and have dignity at the table then your etiquette cannot be questioned for a second. If the rules of the game state that you don't have to fall on your sword if you make a mistake here then you shouldn't. This is poker.

When you acted out of turn you made a mistake, but don't forget that your oppo missed the opportunity to capitalize on that mistake, like you're supposed to in poker. He blundered when he raised and so made a mistake himself.

Why should your mistake be punished when you're oppo gets away with his? The rules state that your mistake can be rectified. Lucky you. Simply adhere to the rules here and do so with honour and grace.

It is important you play like a gentleman.....but a ruthless one.

[RED-DOG]

Tikay, ref: the all-in out of turn. if you play within the rules of the game and have dignity at the table then your etiquette cannot be questioned for a second. If the rules of the game state that you don't have to fall on your sword if you make a mistake here then you shouldn't. This is poker.

When you acted out of turn you made a mistake, but don't forget that your oppo missed the opportunity to capitalize on that mistake, like you're supposed to in poker. He blundered when he raised and so made a mistake himself.

Why should your mistake be punished when you're oppo gets away with his? The rules state that your mistake can be rectified. Lucky you. Simply adhere to the rules here and do so with honour and grace.

It is important you play like a gentleman.....but a ruthless one.

Sometimes ones inbuilt sense of what is the right and honourable thing to do overides the rules as stated.

IMHO of course.

[kinboshi]

Interesting point.  Here's a related one.

I was playing at DTD last night, on the 'nosebleed' games (50p/£1), when a gentleman in his late 50s sat down at the table and bought in for the minimum.  It was clear from the off that he'd never played before.  He didn't even know the basics of the game.

Now he's decided to sit at the table, so should we have all tried to take his chips from him (whilst being pleasant and giving him a nice introduction to the game)?  It was obvious that as soon as he sat down everyone felt uncomfortable and the dynamic at the table altered.  I got involved with him and one other player in a hand where I was open-ended for the nut-straight (which I turned).  I was taking money from another player who I guessed had two pair.  The 'newbie' probably didn't know what he had, and yet he was matching the bets of me and the other player.    I obviously won the pot, and sort of felt sorry for the fella. 

Of course, I'd rather it be me that took his chips than someone else - but what is the correct action here?  I actually popped to the loo after that hand, and then had a chat with TJ and Chili, and by the time I'd come back someone had taken the other half of his stack and he'd gone.  It was his own fault for sitting at a table without knowing what to do, and what he should have done is sat and watched for a while.  This is what I was going to suggest to him after he'd done his stack.  But as he'd already gone, there was no need to say anything.

[MANTIS01]

Posted by: RED-DOG

Sometimes ones inbuilt sense of what is the right and honourable thing to do overides the rules as stated.

I think there's a subtle difference between honour in everyday life and honour at the poker table. Playing by the rules doesn't make you a bad person. I don't mind if I'm unforgiving at playing poker, I think this is how poker should be played.

Playing poker with charitable thoughts towards yor oppos really should be avoided imo. That isn't poker. It's a knitting circle.

[The_duke]

Interesting point.  Here's a related one.

I was playing at DTD last night, on the 'nosebleed' games (50p/£1), when a gentleman in his late 50s sat down at the table and bought in for the minimum.  It was clear from the off that he'd never played before.  He didn't even know the basics of the game.

Now he's decided to sit at the table, so should we have all tried to take his chips from him (whilst being pleasant and giving him a nice introduction to the game)?  It was obvious that as soon as he sat down everyone felt uncomfortable and the dynamic at the table altered.  I got involved with him and one other player in a hand where I was open-ended for the nut-straight (which I turned).  I was taking money from another player who I guessed had two pair.  The 'newbie' probably didn't know what he had, and yet he was matching the bets of me and the other player.    I obviously won the pot, and sort of felt sorry for the fella. 

Of course, I'd rather it be me that took his chips than someone else - but what is the correct action here?  I actually popped to the loo after that hand, and then had a chat with TJ and Chili, and by the time I'd come back someone had taken the other half of his stack and he'd gone.  It was his own fault for sitting at a table without knowing what to do, and what he should have done is sat and watched for a while.  This is what I was going to suggest to him after he'd done his stack.  But as he'd already gone, there was no need to say anything.

Ruthless -- I hope you sleep at night 

Its the only way you can win