the guy won't decide.

This is an important question concerning poker rules. At my home game, we haven't outlined a 'time' call or a limit on time one has to decide. It just had never came up, so the understanding was basically just dont hold up the game too much... this brings us to last night, where I was in a hand heads up with a player (not a close budddy but he's been here a few times) he just wouldn't make a decision. His only choices were: call, or fold (I had bet enough to put him all in.). Minutes went by, and the table got kinda restless. They wanted to get on with the game, you know? I felt the same way, and eventually we agreed between 3 of us that we would act for him in 2 minutes, folding his hand if he failed to act. We made it clear that we were seroius and he had to decide NOW. Times up. "ok man 5 seconds, call or fold, or its over.." ........... no response, and we wiped it, taking his hand. I scooped the pot.

Yeah i understand that in casinos they are strict about this and it's posted, but did we do the right thing? The guy was furious and wanted his money back, which is why i am here asking... thanks for your imput.

Sounds like you did the right thing to me. Three minutes is plenty of time to make a decision. I would have told him to leave and not come back if he expected everyone to wait while he held up the game for minutes on end.

Oh yeah i forgot to mention: This guy is a major producer at my game. We play NL cash and he never leaves with money. (except last night when he left early, and upset.) ....

I guess i feel bad about this and dont want to upset the fish.

[Benoit]

No you did fine, you gave him plenty of time and plenty of warning.

For the next game, just make an announcement or print out especially for time limits. Because of this bozo, you might as well say it up front so he won't get pissed off again. Just make a rule saying something like "anybody at the table can ask for a 2 min countdown as long as reasonable time has been already given." If he wants to get revenge by abusing this rule, then maybe it'll be time to cut your loses on this guy, because that doesn't sound fun.

I would have done the same. Home games can be a pain some times because people don't want to enforce thier rules. I have the same problem some times but you have to put a little crap if want to play in these home games. It is usualy worth it because the players are usualy to worst!

Buffro
patexashold-em.com

[seaniswise]

seriously: if the guy is a feeder at your game, pour him a beer, make him a sandwich, whatever. do not make him go home!

if you set the 2 min call-time rule beforehand, the other players can invoke it.. but since it wasn't an agreed upon standard, and he obviously felt like he wanted to go "deep into the tank for 15 min", you can't really make a case for forcibly mucking his hand--even if the other players decide that 2 min is plenty. maybe he heard somewhere that that's what the pros do when they're faced with a tough decision and felt he deserved to do the same.

do you think people's (including your own) perception of him as a weak player affected your opinion of his using a lot of time? if you are absolutely sure he was just stalling for "no reason", would you treat him differently than a player you know to be highly analytical who also wanted 15 min to think?

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
seriously: if the guy is a feeder at your game, pour him a beer, make him a sandwich, whatever. do not make him go home!

if you set the 2 min call-time rule beforehand, the other players can invoke it.. but since it wasn't an agreed upon standard, and he obviously felt like he wanted to go "deep into the tank for 15 min", you can't really make a case for forcibly mucking his hand--even if the other players decide that 2 min is plenty. maybe he heard somewhere that that's what the pros do when they're faced with a tough decision and felt he deserved to do the same.

do you think people's (including your own) perception of him as a weak player affected your opinion of his using a lot of time? if you are absolutely sure he was just stalling for "no reason", would you treat him differently than a player you know to be highly analytical who also wanted 15 min to think?

[/ QUOTE ]

An analytical player gets fifteen minutes to think in your game?

I wouldn't play anywhere where I didn't have a recourse to stop that. (Ok, maybe I'm heads up for a million bucks I have the stone cold nuts and the other guy covered...I'll give him an hour to hopefully decide to call me...other than that, forget it).

At two minutes you've had enough time to analyize any situation, you just have to have the balls to make a decision at that point. 15 minutes? C'mon.

--Zetack

[John Bedtelyon]

He shouldn't have been mucked. Just cause he didn't obey your on the spot rule, he shouldn't lose HIS money. I'd feel cheated and would probably turn violent, assuming it was more than a $5 sit and go /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

It's stealing, to him, he shouldn't be ostracized for taking his time, and sometimes two minutes isn't enough. I'd have waited and print up some rules for the start of the next game. That way the fish stays happy and everyone else knows the rules ahead of time.

There should always be a print out of house rules at a home game, for reasons just like this.

JMB

[chesspain]

In a recent $200 MTT homegame in which I played, there were no fewer than three different hands at the final table where someone took at least five minutes to respond to an all-in bet. No one seemed to mind, given both the stakes involved and the exhiliration of the drama, with the players muttering out loud about their painful choices.

P.S. I was involved in two of those hands (as the initial all-in bettor), both of which worked out well for me.
P.S.S. I finished in a chop-tie for 1st-2nd, earning $1700 /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[4_2_it]

What were the stakes? $5 buy in or $500 buy in? Makes a difference.

$40 buy in cash....he had about $65, and had invested $25 in the pot, leaving him with $30.

BTW, i wanted him to call. I had flopped TPTK + nut FD.
so, any other opinions? so far pretty good answers--
to those who feel we acted wrongly, should i give him his money back?? that would suck but a good long- term inv.

Give him back his money and make a house rule before the game on calling for a clock. It doesn't sound right when you said "three of us decided to give him 2 minutes..."

I'm not sure how everything went, but the guy may of gotten more confused when given the time limit.

[4_2_it]

Not a lot of cash to go into the tank for 15 minutes. Still, I can't get on board with the table deciding to autofold for him.

I guess the lesson here is to set up ground rules (preferably in writing) before you play. If you were going to fold his hand you should have offered his money back, especially since he is a donator. If some one did this to me, I would not come back. JMHO.

I play in a very friendly home game where there is no check raising. Each week I kid the host and make sure he is still enforcing the rule. Maybe one day he will give in /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[John Bedtelyon]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how everything went, but the guy may of gotten more confused when given the time limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still against the mucking his hand, but how would he get confused if he was told, "you have two minutes to decide or you will be folded."

I don't understand how he couldn't say anything, especially when there were 10 seconds left!

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess the lesson here is to set up ground rules (preferably in writing) before you play. If you were going to fold his hand you should have offered his money back, especially since he is a donator. If some one did this to me, I would not come back. JMHO.

:

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the orrignal poster he sat there for "minutes" before they gave him two to act. So say he sat there for two minutes then they gave him two more (I'm guessing it was a lot longer than that with all the necessary discussing what to do). You're saying that with at least four minutes to act you wouldn't make a decision and that with a two minute warning you'd be so pissed off about it that you'd never play there again after they folded your hand? ... I just don't know what to say about that.

So, um...would you not come back if they folded your hand after fifteen minutes because there was no written time rule? How about an hour? What if you sat there for 6 hours, going "no written rule, no written rule, I'm still thinking..." They still can't fold your hand?

Whatever man. Don't come back then. But be aware that you're the unreasonable one, not the guys who give you 4 or 5 minutes to act then fold your hand.


--Zetack

[Lottery Larry]

" I felt the same way, and eventually we agreed between 3 of us that we would act for him in 2 minutes, folding his hand if he failed to act. We made it clear that we were seroius and he had to decide NOW. Times up. "ok man 5 seconds, call or fold, or its over.." ........... no response, and we wiped it, taking his hand. I scooped the pot.

Yeah i understand that in casinos they are strict about this and it's posted, but did we do the right thing? The guy was furious and wanted his money back"

Did anyone think to ask WHY he was taking so long, or how much time he thought he needed? Was he thinking that he could wait out a tell from you?

Making a decision on the time limit without involving him seems a bit controlling. I agree that your time deadline was reasonable and he shouldn't complain that he wasn't warned, but you might have handled it a bit more diplomatically, rather than autocratically.

"Give me my money back"? yeah, right. He was stupid.

[beekeeper]

[ QUOTE ]
They wanted to get on with the game, you know? I felt the same way, and eventually we agreed between 3 of us that we would act for him in 2 minutes, folding his hand if he failed to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should have stayed out of it and let the rest of the table decide.

[4_2_it]

I'm not saying I would take 15 minutes to act. Clearly the guy was in the wrong, but folding his hand? That doesn't seem like the right way to resolve this. This is a no-win situation, I don't think there is any one solution that reasonable people could agree is fair.

I'm just saying that I would not play in a game where the table suddenly makes arbitrary rules and then enforces them in the middle of a hand. What next, 6's are wild after the flop or how about we make this a hi-lo pot? I just get nervous when new rules pop up out of nowhere during a home game. Most home games are for fun, and there shouldn't be that much pressure where it would take more than one minute to make a decision, but the rules shouldn't change in mid-stream either.

[Lottery Larry]

I understand your sentiment, but I disagree with your reasoning. This is not a special rule that has been suddenly inserted, this is a common rule that you can find in casinos and therefore it wasn't a radical thing to expect for the hand to be folded after several warnings.

Yes, a home game is more relaxed and friendly, but you can't let someone hold the game hostage either.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your sentiment, but I disagree with your reasoning. This is not a special rule that has been suddenly inserted, this is a common rule that you can find in casinos and therefore it wasn't a radical thing to expect for the hand to be folded after several warnings.

Yes, a home game is more relaxed and friendly, but you can't let someone hold the game hostage either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what Larry said.

Arbitrary and capricious rules shouldn't be made on the spot. I'd be in your corner if they said, hey man, you're taking too long, 10 more seconds and we're folding your hand. But they didn't.

Six are now wild, next orbit is omaha...those are arbitrary and capricious in a freezout. Saying you only get to take a reasonable amount of time to act is not.

There are a lot of implicit rules. We never explicitly say you can't look at flop cards before they are dealt, but that doesn't mean you can pick up the deck and look at them while trying to decide whether to call an all-in bet. Sometimes you have to make rulings as you go along, and a table consensus that the guy couldn't have an unlimitted amount of time to just sit there, is a reasonable way to handle it.

I like Larry's way of putting it, the guy can't hold the table hostage.

--Zetack

[4_2_it]

I agree that it is a common rule and can understand why the players acted the way they did. We just do not know all the circumstances here. I'm sure the vacillator had some justification (at least in his mind) for his actions (though I can't think of one). However, you are assuming that the offender has played in a casino or is familar with casino rules. If all this guy knows about poker is what he sees on ESPN then who knows what he is thinking. Also, were there 7 other other guys heckling him for the entire time? Maybe he cracked under the abuse/pressure. We just don't know.

Lottery Larry, I respect your posts as well-thought and on the mark, I think I might be the nit here so I will stop the insanity after this post as I have a bad beat post to draft /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Since this does not appear to be a friendly home game, then I will say to the OP, if this guy is a fish, you didn't just tap the glass, you took a sledgehamer and destroyed it.

Welll... its MY game, so i do like to keep control.

MY Q IS: when do poker rules lose their authority? Which ones are holy, and which are too obtuse and snobby for a home game? Has someone written a 'home game poker rules' book? WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO?

BTW: Its obvious now that i should give hime his money back. Somehow he totally screwed me by 'taking the table hostage'. Its a cheap lesson really.... Whatever man, just dont try that again.

A footnote: Is giving a player special treatment because he's a franklin flippin' fish immoral? more on this later too... thanks anyone and all...

[Lottery Larry]

" I'm sure the vacillator had some justification (at least in his mind) for his actions (though I can't think of one). However, you are assuming that the offender has played in a casino or is familar with casino rules."

It doesn't matter- if the delay was as extreme as indicated, you can make a case for creating a deadline and enforcing it. Your last comment below is a related consideration, however.

"Lottery Larry, I respect your posts as well-thought and on the mark"

Work on your reads- they're horrible :P

"after this post as I have a bad beat post to draft"
Don't make me hunt you down and beat you


"I will say to the OP, if this guy is a fish, you didn't just tap the glass, you took a sledgehamer and destroyed it. "
Agreed. Balancing the game vs. the player's future considerations is the tough part of this.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
"after this post as I have a bad beat post to draft"
Don't make me hunt you down and beat you

[/ QUOTE ]

I do live in Huntingdon Valley, so I guess I'll start looking over my shoulder when I go into the Wawa for my morning cup of coffee. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"after this post as I have a bad beat post to draft"
Don't make me hunt you down and beat you

[/ QUOTE ]

I do live in Huntingdon Valley, so I guess I'll start looking over my shoulder when I go into the Wawa for my morning cup of coffee. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Hmmmm, only 42 miles... maybe you'd BETTER.
:P