Cash game- wtf now?

[Boba Fett]

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.

[SuuPRlim]

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.

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.

[titaniumbean]

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.

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

[SuuPRlim]

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.

[titaniumbean]

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

still this is the reason why there are rules.

[Doobs]

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.

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?

[Tal]

Good question, doobs.

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

[MANTIS01]

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.

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? 

[DTD-ACES]

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

[Tal]

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?

[George2Loose]

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

[bobAlike]

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.

[nirvana]

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?

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

[titaniumbean]

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?

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.

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

exactly


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

[kinboshi]

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.