Very strange thing happened last night

[Lawrence Ng]

10-20 Full kill game last night. This hand is not a kill hand. I'm in MP with 10 /images/graemlins/spade.gif10 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and all fold to me where I raise. Guy next me - call him Mr. tilt-a-wheel - re-raises. This guy has raised 99 percent preflop and has re-raised 80 percent of the time pre-flop. All fold back to me and I just call.

Flop comes 10 /images/graemlins/club.gif2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

I bet, Mr Tilt raises, and I re-raise, and so forth till I raise about 5 times then he just calls.

Mr. Tilt has been running devilishly well hitting a lot of hands, but I seem to have the jinx on him as whenever we are heads up I have won 100 percent of the time.

Turn comes the 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif

I bet again, he raises and so at this point I put him on an overpair, possibly a smaller set and heck even two pair wouldn't surprise me. So again I raise another 2 times and he just calls.

River pairs the 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif

I bet, he raises again, and I reraise, yadda yadda..

Now here is the funny thing. After I raised him a 3rd time last on the river he got very very upset. With lightning fast reflexes, he grabbed my hand even though it was protected with a chip, took the cards along with his own cards to look at them and then threw them straight into the muck.

He then storms out of the poker room before I even get a chance to land my fist on his head.

Anyways, the pit awarded me the pot and they cashed him out and I didn't see him for the rest of the night.

My question is should they let this guy back in? I mean if he's going to maintain such childish and downright improper compusure, who is going to sit next to him and play with him knowing well that he may muck a winning hand.

I spoke with the casino management after this incident and all I got was "we will investigate into the matter" answer.

[brad]

i would bet the turn dark 100% of the time. (cause come on youre gonna bet anyway, and it will elicit excessive action probably).

as to his improper behavior, once he takes your cards you win the pot of course.

as long as it doesnt happen again you know i say cut him a break, stuff like that happens. heck, it might even help you protect your hand.

[Edge34]

I've gotta disagree with you on this one Brad. In order to make SURE that such childish and downright unacceptable behavior never happens again, a casino should make an example out of this buffoon. Anybody who plays in a given casino should at least have a VERY basic understanding of rules and ettiquette (sp?) and this guy certainly did not. If there's anywhere else to go play poker, he can go there. If there's not, he brought it upon himself. This goes far beyond the playing of the hand and should probably go in B&M, but to make it fit in here a little more, i'll just say that the hand was well-played. Always nice to flop a set and take down a nice pot...any way that you can in this case.

[brad]

well maybe in a low limit game but in mid limits people go crazy and get away with it i dont think u can count on floorman doing anything at all.

well maybe if you toke them a lot maybe.

[andyfox]

"He then storms out of the poker room before I even get a chance to land my fist on his head."

If this indeed is what you would have done, they shouldn't let you back in.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Lawrence:

Of course they should let him back in. He didn't do anything to disrupt play, and why would would want a live one like that barred anyway?

Best wishes,
Mason

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Lawrence:

Of course they should let him back in. He didn't do anything to disrupt play


[/ QUOTE ]

But he did do something to disrupt the integrity of the game.

[ QUOTE ]

and why would would want a live one like that barred anyway?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because there is more to poker than money.

Josh

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Josh:

As the great Ray Z likes to say, "You're playing poker, not going to church."

Best wishes,
mason

[mike l.]

i gotta agree w/ mason on this one. all the guy did was foul his hand thus giving up the pot in a heads up situation. what exactly is the problem?

if you didnt like that one than you wouldve hated what i saw a month or two ago. it was the river and a player who had been showing strength all the way bet out. some other player was hemming and hawing and then he picked up his cards so the girl next to him (a very rambunctious chick who loves to cuss and yell, but also to laugh and kid around, oftentimes in the same breath) could see them. she saw what he was holding and said "sheeit! give me that!" grabbed them out of the guys hand and tossed them face down in the muck. everyone laughed.

[Lawrence Ng]

Well, first off he didn't call my final raise. He owed me another $20 if he wanted to see my cards that bad. Had he called me, he could've taken my 10's and eat them or rip them up or slit himself with it for all I care.

Secondly, there has to be some sort of protection to ensure that players do not overact in such a manner. Yes, he is a live one and as such extra tolerances should be made. I won't argue with money here.

I think he should be given a warning by the floor and if such behavior persists then he should be banned.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Lawrence:

First off, this opponent has lost many more bets to you than he should in this hand. Second, after all that action, everyone at the table should know what your hand is, especially if you play tight. And you do play tight don't you? Third, once he touches your hand, his hand is dead anyway. It's just as if he had folded.

The only bad part of this hand is that he got up and left. I bet everyone else would have liked for him to play a few more hours.

But I think there is something a little deeper here. Poker is not a gentleman's game where people sit around a table and use cards as a means to outwit each other. It's also part hustle, and part con. That maybe unfortunate, but if it was a gentleman's game, then you owe it to this opponent to tell him that given the way he plays he shouldn't be playing at all, and I bet you didn't do that.

Sometimes in the poker room we joke about certain terrible players who violate their sucker privledges. Perhaps that's what happened here. But you still want him to play.

Best wishes,
Mason

[johnd]

You must stoned i would give this guy a ride to the card room.

[DanZ]

Mason,

regarding the"not a gentleman's game" comments, is it not obvious to almost every player at a higher middle stakes or larger game that there is significant skill required to play?

In other words, if you announced to everyone at the table, or to several players, that you play much better than them, and they should play a smaller game (or not at all), would they really leave the table?

And, if/since they would not, would you then be obligated to get up yourself, or return to them a share of your winnings?

People seem to make these announcements of superior skill all the time, either in ridiculing other's play, or announcing they are "pot -limit players" or whatever, yet no one seems to leave. It's also very clear at the games who is playing tight, thinking extensively, etc., and by clear, it's obvious to even the worst players.

Just curious about your thoughts on the topic.

Dan Z.

[MMMMMM]

"If this indeed is what you would have done, they shouldn't let you back in."

Thought crime, eh, andy? ;-)

[Al_Capone_Junior]

There was no violence in the matter, just extremely bad ettiquette. I'da probably called after him saying "your money is good here any day."

Morons like that get what they deserve, they lose their money fast.

al

[MMMMMM]

Two suggestions:

1) Protect your cards with one hand most of the time especially in big pots, not with just a chip. I have seen cards winged into other player's chip-protected cards so that they are indistinguishable. Rare, but strange things can happen, and what if it was a no-limit pot or something.

2) I think it's fine if management cautions him, but I wouldn't try to get him barred. You need some real live ones to overcome the rake and show a decent long-term profit, so he's really an asset as long as he isn't too terribly nasty or disruptive to the game (if this guy plays incredibly slowly I think that might be more grounds for barring;-)).

I do understand your concerns, but live ones get certain privileges the rest of us don't. If we were playing chess that wouldn't be the case, but poker is, as Mason suggested, part skill and part hustle or con. Where the line is drawn is up to you (and to the casino rules), but I have always accepted that suckers get a little extra leeway. After all they lose so often they need to have a psychological means of venting their frustration, and if that is an occasional outburst or something, well...up to a point I don't mind too much. I'm not suggesting they should be able to severely abuse players or dealers, but some little leeway is tolerable, in my opinion. Also, when they do it, I think everyone at the table usually knows who the sucker and the loser is;-)

But do usually keep your cards protected with one hand in big pots (unless you have superhuman reflexes;-))...it just might save you a big pot someday.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Dan:

I believe that many players don't understand the skill gap between them and some of their opponents. If they did, they might not play.

Best wishes,
Mason

[jkinetic]

Mason,

You stated "I believe that many players don't understand the skill gap between them and some of their opponents. If they did, they might not play."

Which brings up this question, how can you quantify that gap?

For instance, let's assume you are playing 20/40.

How much extra per hour can you extract from the following categories of players:

1. Maniac
2. LAG who plays well after the flop
3. LAG who plays average after the flop
4. Weak tight habitual folders
5. Loose passive calling stations
6. Rocks who never bluff

The reason I bring this up is that a while ago a friend who has been a winning player for the past 10 years was stating to me how tough it is to make it in poker because even if you are a superior player and are playing against average to slightly above average players your edge is not really enough or worth it considering the rake or collection.

He was emphasizing to me the importance of playing in the softest game possible and not wasting my time on a table where I can only expect to win a few bucks an hour.

[Josh W]

I see your point. I just happen to disagree.

See, I don't like being around people that have that much disrespect for others. I put up with it a lot, but I don't LIKE it.

And given that my respect for humans is greater than my respect (or need) for money, I would choose to play in a respectful environment. As such, if I could do something very simple (such as telling a floorman that this player should be barred) to make my poker environment more respectful, I would. And do.

However, if blatant disrespect (for people and the game) doesn't bother you or others, then they shouldn't ask for the player to be barred.

I'm a very religious person. And when I play cards, I'm not in church.

But the church is still in me.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
(a very rambunctious chick who loves to cuss and yell, but also to laugh and kid around, oftentimes in the same breath)


[/ QUOTE ]

Is she asian with the initials PG?

[Tommy Angelo]

"why would would want a live one like that barred anyway?"

Hi Mason,

I have no opinion on what the casino management should do, just as I don't have an opinion on the style of carpet they choose.

But I do think your comment suggests that unequal treatment by the house is not only good, but that it should be administered unequally based on a player's expected results, and I think that's unfair and wrong.

Tommy

[Cleric]

Buy a gun.

[Mason Malmuth]

C'mon Tommy:

If a tourist type player fails to act because he didn't realize it was his turn, the action should be called back to him. When one of the regulars does the same thing it's a shot by him to try to see what the action behind him will be. Even though both of these events will look very similar to the uneducated eye, the floor's decision shold be different in each case.

Best wishes,
Mason

[mike l.]

[andyfox]

There's a big difference between playing well and tough, and conning people with your play, and grabbing someone's cards and throwing them in the muck. The poster said had the guy not left he would have hit him.

I don't want either guy to play. Period.

[andyfox]

I think Tommy's talking about unacceptable behavior, not losing track of the action. Lots of unacceptable behavior is tolerated by casinos because they see these players as cash cows: they pay a lot in collections and tokes and they keep games going because the non-fish like to play with them. It's shortsighted.

There was a good discussion of this in the "Nasty Players" thread on the Psychology Forum.

In the present case you have one guy that's probably going to do worse things because nothing was done about this. And another guy who says he would have hit him had he not gotten up.

[andyfox]

Well put.

The only reason it's not a gentleman's game is that people who have some pull in the industry don't see anythiing wrong with this kind of thing.

[andyfox]

This will, of course, eventually happen. After all, it's not a gentleman's game.

[squiffy]

There's certain things you just don't do. You've got to draw the line somewhere. His conduct was completely inappropriate. And if no discipline is imposed, he may continue to do things like that or worse. He may not have "disrupted" play on this hand. But he may find a way to next time.

I am not sure what an appropriate punishment is. You obviously want a losing player to continue playing. But it seems to me there must be some appropriate punishment that would get him to follow the rules.

Now imagine that he did this on every hand to every opponent. At some point you would have to impose discipline. And I would argue, even one infraction like this is pretty serious.

And as a practical matter, if he keeps doing things like this and the casino does not take action, sooner or later he will start a serious fight or conflict and the casino may end up being liable.

[andyfox]

The problem is that people who do things like this are likely to indeed do worse in the future, especially if there's no downside to doing it.

An appropriate punishment would be banishment from the casino permanently. There are other fish in the sea and there will be more who will come swimming when the cardrooms do not have reputations as cesspools.

[rkiray]

I disagree with this Mason. This is the kind of stuff that seems to be tolerated more in Vegas than anywhere else I've played. I think it's bad for poker. Sure it's great to have him in the game, but tolerating bad behavoir (drunks, too aggressive, really bad language, etc) keeps some people away from poker IMO. If Vegas would be a little stricter on the really bad behavoir I think more fish would play poker. I know this hand wasn't played in Vegas but that's where I've seen the most tolerence for bad behavoir. There are a couple of threads about this in the Psychology forum right now. I've never played in any of the big CA rooms though. I've heard they are pretty tolerant also.

[rkiray]

Look I don't think anyone wants cardroom to be like churches, but why can't they have the same standards of civility as most public places in America. Say a decent restarant.

You also seem to have a double standard here, why do you guys censor these forums. You censor much more than I'm advocating card rooms do. I'm not complaining, I think Mat does a good job and I definitely prefer a moderated forum to say RGP. But you guys are pretty strict on language. Vegas card room are much, much worse.

My favorite opponents are LPPs. I think they are the ones most turned off by bad behavoir (I think Dr. Al says similar things in his book). I've never seen anything in a cardroom that really bugs me (I like cardrooms in general). But if the behavoir was slightly monitored I think we'd see alot more LPP fish.

Here's an example of what I don't like. Last spring I was in a 6/12 game at the Mirage with my brother and a friend. This was a good game for one reason. There was a young woman (probably mid-20s) tourist who was making the game. She was in a gambling mood and was way too loose and a little too aggresive. She said she had been playing poker for a few years, and I believed her. She did seem to know what she was doing. She just told the whole table she was on vacation and she came to gamble. She was really frindly and talking to everyone. Basically making a great game.

She got in a hand with a retired local regular (all the dealers knew him, and he talked a bit with a couple of other locals). They both ended up on the river with Broadway (the nuts) heads-up. He bet, she raised and announced "I know we have the same hand, but I'm raising anyway." They split the pot, and then the old man started yelling at her. "Why did you raise if you knew we had the same hand." They both stood up and yelled at each other for 3 or 4 minutes. If this would happen at a decent restaurant, someone would probably come over and ask them to calm down or leave. No one said a word at The Mirage. I don't think they should have been tossed out, but someone should have told them to calm down and act like adults. If it happened again, then they should have been tossed IMO (especially the old man).

BTW, I talked to my brother and friend about this later. Neither they or the young woman (based on her arguments) even understood why the old guy was poed. It was because either her raise or his call made the pot big enough to take the last $1 in rake out of the pot. Therefore if she "knew" they had the same hand her raise was stupid. I thought he explained this clearly, but unless you play alot of poker, I guess it was easy to misunderstand him (he was not the most articulate person in the world). I think he was really dumb to cause this much trouble over 50 cents, especially against the person who was making the game. But I thought it was worse that no one at the Mirage said anything to either of them. I see stuff like this in Vegas way more than anywhere else.

[MMMMMM]

Andy I think that's not an appropriate punishment; it's a ridiculous punishment. The guy's hand was automatically folded. He lost the pot. That's punishment enough. Although I do agree he should be cautioned gently by the floor when he next returns.

Maybe you don't like playing with classless buffoons because you make tons of money in your business anyway. But for the rest of us earnest poker players trying to make a few bucks at the game, those classless buffoons are a welcome sight. If you wish to play exclusively in a gentleman's club maybe you should open one;-)

[andyfox]

I think Rkray makes a good point below: this type of behavior would not be put up with in a public restaurant. The customer would be kicked out and not allowed to return.

It's not just this particular incident that is the problem. It's the dozens of similar incidents, and worse, that are put up with. I'm sure this guy has done worse and will do worse because there's no penalty for it.

Where I play a guy was given a twenty minute time-out for abusive, foul-mouthed behavior. After about five minutes he walked over to the game and grabbed the deck out of the dealer's hand and flung the cards. The dealer called over the floorman and the guy was given an additional twenty minutes.

A couple of us went over to a higher-up and the guy was kicked out permanently.

Until the next day.

When I asked why he was back in the club, I was told he apologized.

Another 2+2er who knows this guy better than I do (since he plays more often) has told me he is absolutely certain that one day this guy will go off the deep end and people will be hurt.

I don't want a gentleman's club. I'm sure that if the most egregious offenders, several of whom are favorites to explode in violence sooner or later, were kicked out, there would be more people playing and thus more buffoons for you to fleece. (Just last week when someone asked me if I play in the publc cardrooms in L.A., and I replied that I did, they responded, "How can you stand those jerks that play there?") Rick Nebiolo has written eloquently on this on 2+2 (and RGP) and Dr. Schoonmaker's Nasty People article and thread on the Psychology Forum are particularly incisive on these issues.

[MMMMMM]

"I'm sure that if the most egregious offenders, several of whom are favorites to explode in violence sooner or later, were kicked out, there would be more people playing and thus more buffoons for you to fleece."

Please, andy: "...try to fleece."

[Martin Aigner]

did this happen in an B+M casino or online /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Guess, I wuoldn´t think about it twice. I do agree that the behaviour of this player is ridiculous, but to tell the truth: I´ve seen worth things happen at the table, which were accepted by the casino stuff.

Nice pot anyway

Best regards

Martin Aigner

[clovenhoof]

I think the real problem to be addressed in this thread is that the subject of the discussion probably already has one. The question is, what do you do given it's eminently predictable how unpredictable his conduct is likely to be if pushed in the wrong direction.

'hoof