this unnamed player from the Razz event is a wuss

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
Jen Creason ran into a little bad luck when action was down to two tables. She was issued a ten minute penalty for use of profanity at the table. She was all in with the worst hand and dropped the dreaded "F-bomb." She caught a lucky card on the river to beat her opponent.

After he lost the hand, he asked for a penalty to be called on Jen. Unfortunately for her, the ruling was held up by a floor manager. She lost most of her stack due to antes while waiting out her penalty and ended up in 15th place. After a short break, she was back to work in media row providing chip counts and updates of the Razz event.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree the f-rule, while maybe a bit useful, is most certainly a lame piece of [censored] when someone lets the f-bomb slip when they realize they're behind and all in -

but anyone who upon losing decides to call the penalty, esp. when it wasn't directed at him, and ESPECIALLY if it's a guy -

that guy is a pussy.
RB

[-Skeme-]

The F-bomb rule is quite possibly the dumbest rule ever.

[Army Eye]

What a fucking pathetic rule.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
The F-bomb rule is quite possibly the dumbest rule ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. F*ck the f-rule.

I was surprised that the tourney directors would do this, since it goes directly against their and ESPN's interests - f-bombs, even when "bleeped", make for more interesting television. Personally, I think it's hilarious when someone gets the crap end of a two-outer suckout on the river and you can see their mouths and know that they're letting out a string of profanities that would make a longshoreman blush and all you hear is "beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep" for like three straight minutes. THAT is quality entertainment.

Besides, do they really think that most people watch these things to appreciate the wit and skill of player's maneuvers (most of which they can't understand) and to have each battle of intellects punctuated by "very nice hand, chap!"? F*ck no - they want to have a front-row seat and insider information to the impending trainwrecks of people bluffing other people off of good hands and players running into better hands when they suspect a bluff. They want to see Gus Hansen flex his bicep while Phil Laak does situps and Antonio Esfandiari does that wave thing to try to magic away the chair that Phil Hellmuth just threw at him. That's what they want to see, and that's what the players want to do, so what the f--k is the problem?

ok what was that, three times? I'll be back in thirty minutes.

[henrikrh]

He should be penalized for blatantly exploiting the rule to gain an unfair advantage, he called the ruling after he got bad beated, not when it occured, he wasn't concerned with the rule at all but with getting back at her.

f-rule sucks.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
He should be penalized for blatantly exploiting the rule to gain an unfair advantage, he called the ruling after he got bad beated, not when it occured, he wasn't concerned with the rule at all but with getting back at her.

f-rule sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

she can't sit out if she's out of chips...

[Rosie5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The F-bomb rule is quite possibly the dumbest rule ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. F*ck the f-rule.

I was surprised that the tourney directors would do this, since it goes directly against their and ESPN's interests - f-bombs, even when "bleeped", make for more interesting television. Personally, I think it's hilarious when someone gets the crap end of a two-outer suckout on the river and you can see their mouths and know that they're letting out a string of profanities that would make a longshoreman blush and all you hear is "beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep" for like three straight minutes. THAT is quality entertainment.

Besides, do they really think that most people watch these things to appreciate the wit and skill of player's maneuvers (most of which they can't understand) and to have each battle of intellects punctuated by "very nice hand, chap!"? F*ck no - they want to have a front-row seat and insider information to the impending trainwrecks of people bluffing other people off of good hands and players running into better hands when they suspect a bluff. They want to see Gus Hansen flex his bicep while Phil Laak does situps and Antonio Esfandiari does that wave thing to try to magic away the chair that Phil Hellmuth just threw at him. That's what they want to see, and that's what the players want to do, so what the f--k is the problem?

ok what was that, three times? I'll be back in thirty minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

search for "deal me the F*** in" by Thomas Keller on cardplayer.com, you'd like it

[gr8vertical]

I found the link, I thought I would post it to save you all some time

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14668

[clutch]

[censored]

[BruinEric]

Forgetting the merits of the rule for a second, would NONE of you EVER see a chance where you'd use the rule to your financial gain given the right opportunity?

Sports managers take advantage of technicalities all the time. Frank Robinson got a pitcher ejected because of gunk on his glove. The Canadiens changed the Stanley Cup series vs. the Kings by measuring Marty McSorley's stick. Billy Martin (temporarily) won a game for his team because George Brett's bat had too much pine tar on it.

Let's say you're at the final table with a fairly weak stack. Difference in prize money between places is meaningful and blinds just increased. A shorter stack drops the F-bomb. You know that if you call the floor on this, you will be guaranteed to walk away with $10k+ or more just by folding while missing player gets blinded off. Even if you disagree with the rule, do you call it for your own financial gain?

Or what if you're heads-up on the final table of a tourney where the diff in 1st & 2nd place money is quite big. You're down to 25% the stack of the other player, who because of his use of the F-bomb earlier in the tournament faces a 30-minute penalty for dropping another one. Your opponent just beat you in a pot by slowplaying a much better hand and you're burning up and he's gloating. He turns over his shoulder and yells at one of his 20-something clubbing buddies "Hey, drinks are on me tonight as soon as I'm done busting this F***ing dork." Do you call the floor and mercilessly rake in uncontested blinds/antes during his timeout?

[Sabrazack]

Yes, if he was such an idiot saying those things, im calling it on him. If the guy has been decent to me, i would not. I would just be to ashamed of myself to be able to live with it.

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Or what if you're heads-up on the final table of a tourney where the diff in 1st & 2nd place money is quite big. You're down to 25% the stack of the other player, who because of his use of the F-bomb earlier in the tournament faces a 30-minute penalty for dropping another one. Your opponent just beat you in a pot by slowplaying a much better hand and you're burning up and he's gloating. He turns over his shoulder and yells at one of his 20-something clubbing buddies "Hey, drinks are on me tonight as soon as I'm done busting this F***ing dork." Do you call the floor and mercilessly rake in uncontested blinds/antes during his timeout?

[/ QUOTE ]


He insults me like that he is toast. I would be calling the
floor on that one.

[duma]

thats why its best to cuss in another language. thats probably a technicality they havent thought of yet.

[Beavis68]

The problem with these rules, as Keller points out, is that the dealers don't enforce them evenly.

If the dealer had been doing his/her job, no one at the table would have to speak up.

[valenzuela]

two things:That rule is nonsense, the OP is so wrong.
The rule does suck, yadi, yada.
Why can a woman complain and a man cant, that makes no sense at all.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgetting the merits of the rule for a second, would NONE of you EVER see a chance where you'd use the rule to your financial gain given the right opportunity?

Sports managers take advantage of technicalities all the time. Frank Robinson got a pitcher ejected because of gunk on his glove. The Canadiens changed the Stanley Cup series vs. the Kings by measuring Marty McSorley's stick. Billy Martin (temporarily) won a game for his team because George Brett's bat had too much pine tar on it.

Let's say you're at the final table with a fairly weak stack. Difference in prize money between places is meaningful and blinds just increased. A shorter stack drops the F-bomb. You know that if you call the floor on this, you will be guaranteed to walk away with $10k+ or more just by folding while missing player gets blinded off. Even if you disagree with the rule, do you call it for your own financial gain?

Or what if you're heads-up on the final table of a tourney where the diff in 1st & 2nd place money is quite big. You're down to 25% the stack of the other player, who because of his use of the F-bomb earlier in the tournament faces a 30-minute penalty for dropping another one. Your opponent just beat you in a pot by slowplaying a much better hand and you're burning up and he's gloating. He turns over his shoulder and yells at one of his 20-something clubbing buddies "Hey, drinks are on me tonight as soon as I'm done busting this F***ing dork." Do you call the floor and mercilessly rake in uncontested blinds/antes during his timeout?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question illustrates my main objection to this rule. The fact that it is enforced arbitrarily opens the door to plays like this, where a person gets an edge that is completely unrelated to his ability. The rule doesnt bother me that much so long as it is enforced across the board, no questions asked.

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
The F-bomb rule is quite possibly the dumbest rule ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

worst.rule.ever

but how do you fix this? announce that it is OK to say fuk?

i think it was implemented without really examining the consequences, and they are now stuck with it. tough rule to reverse without sending the wrong message.

[valenzuela]

1)awwwwwwww fcuk.
2)You fcukin nigger.
I propose a sensible floor person.

[KingCon]

Just curious, would yous till think this guy was a pussy if he called the floor person on another guy, or do you think he is a puss just because He complained against a woman player?

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
1)awwwwwwww fcuk.
2)You fcukin nigger.
I propose a sensible floor person.

[/ QUOTE ]

i completely understand and agree that it should be a floor based call. but, that would require a rule change from the current, mandatory penalty.

i propose you write a new rule that would fix this. tough rule to write, huh?

[Lottery Larry]

"After he lost the hand, he asked for a penalty to be called on Jen."

Strategy, perhaps?

[LeatherFace]

fupcking stupid rule

[Smoothcall]

I agree its cheezy to call for that rule. But why ESPECIALLY if its a guy calling for the rule? Women should be treated equally at the table. And deserve no special treatment because there a woman. They are trying to take my money at the table and i am not gonna make it easier for them just because there female.

[2+2 wannabe]

there are rules that everyone thinks are stupid (e.g. jaywalking, speeding, etc.) - but just cause they're stupid doesn't mean you don't have to follow them

she knew the rule, she broke the rule

no sympathy here

[Daliman]

She made a mistake.

He capitalized on the mistake properly for financial gain.

Sounds just like poker to me.

Whether or not it's a dumb rule, which I believe it is, is not the point. Those of you who say it's wuss or bush league for him to call it on her only after she wins, three things;

1. You're wrong.
2. If you wouldn't do the same, you are missing out on a legal, profitable opportunity. Pass up many of these, and you just aren't very good at poker.
3. If you say it's bush because he waited until she sucked out, ask yourself this; since she was allin, exactly what use is calling a penalty on her if HE won the hand? Zero, she's out anyways, a ten minute penalty has little value if you are on the rail anyways.. A case can actually be made for him being MORE classy for not calling it on her immediately when it happened, so as not to rub salt in the wound if she lost.


All that said, this is an adult event, held with no children around. It's not telecast live, so any swearing can easily be edited out for television. I understand it's more for preventing squabbles over usage of the term, whether exclamatory or defamatory, as addressed earlier in the thread, but of course many other words can be used in a defamatory way.

[grandgnu]

I'd rather be a rich pussy than a broke tough guy. Taking advantage of strategic opportunities and rules such as these is great.

I was at Foxwoods in 2003 and placed in a final table of a Tuesday night rebuy event. Chip leader made a comment that violated the rules. I was still new and didn't realize it, but another guy at the table did and called him on it and he got a penalty for it. Helped us all out, since he couldn't push us around as much.

No sense in complaining about rules that are spelled out, that's why they're there. I have plenty of home game players who think rules against board/table talk, splashing the pot or string bets are stupid as well. Just because someone thinks a rule is "stupid" doesn't mean it is.

[Smoothcall]

I agree with this as far as making a profitable play. And would have it mulling in my mind that i should have her penalized but probably wouldn't as if nobody else mentioned it and only me i would be seen as scum. If that eprson has done somthing to me like this before or been rude than i would feel less willing to care how it made me look.

[Smoothcall]

To me the only reason for the rule is to stop rudeness and fight at the table to clean things up. It seems not fair to penalize the one that just say "f_ck" in a reaction to getting moved over the top and they can't call and just lost alot of chips. I mean its the rule they have right now so its fair, but the rule should be changed to only penalize the people that use profanity to insult and or bate another player into a fight or argument. And or abuse profanity. And not punish someone for a harmless exclamation when it wasn't intended at anybody but her luck or whatever.

[flo]

I don't think it's always clear to distinguish between the two forms of the f-words you mentioned. Rules should be formulated in a way no one can misunderstand them or rule them in a wrong way.
If someone makes a loose call and wins with miracle outs, who can say for sure if the loser swears at his bad luck or at the lucky opponent who sucked out on him?

[Smoothcall]

It should be up to the floorman to make that ruling. It slike like the exposing card rule. if the floorman thinks it was an honest mistake some floormen will say its ok this time but let the player know they you can't do it. If they think it was an intentional expose of cards they will kill his hand.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
It should be up to the floorman to make that ruling. It slike like the exposing card rule. if the floorman thinks it was an honest mistake some floormen will say its ok this time but let the player know they you can't do it. If they think it was an intentional expose of cards they will kill his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this brings in the problem of context. Floormen rarely witness the infraction, and depending on who is more convincing, reputable, and even valuable, the decision can often go either way, or i guess even one of many different ways. With zero tolerance, the decision is clear.

"Did she say 'Fukc'?"
"Yes"
"Ten minute penalty. Now where's my coffee?'

[Smoothcall]

Yes i agree it clear this way. And having the floorman decide could lead to problems. But it justr doesn't seem right to penalize someone for having emotion when not intentionlly attacking or hurting anyone. We are not robots and rules like this will take the emotion out of the game and thats not good for poker. Its like taking away the endzone celebration in football. Except its easier to refrain form dancing in an endzone than it is to blurt a profanity when get snapped off for big money. And this rule may make the most deserving player not win tournaments if they get penalized for a minor profanity and have to get blinded out. Seems there should be no rule if the choices are all or nothing.