Cash game- wtf now?

[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?

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

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.

[MANTIS01]

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 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.

[Woodsey]

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

[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.

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.

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

[FUN4FRASER]

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

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.

[nirvana]

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'

[FUN4FRASER]

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 .

[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.

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? 

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.

[George2Loose]

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

[nirvana]

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

[Honeybadger]

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.

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.

[NEWY]

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

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.

[Boba Fett]

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

[George2Loose]

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

[Claw75]

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'?