Re: Slowrolling
 

I expected to read a story about a slowroll and instead get a story about a couple of idiots.
FYP

Re: Slowrolling
 

I wasn't sure the one player to a hand rule applied to this situation so, as always, I checked Robert's Rules for guidance.

"The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:

...

Reading a hand for another player at the showdown before it has been placed faceup on the table.

Telling anyone to turn a hand faceup at the showdown."

So what you did was, in fact, improper. It goes a little against my grain, because I like the best hand to win. It's a good reason to always table your hands faceup at showdown though.


--Zetack

Re: Slowrolling
 

I agree, I was wrong earlier- I missed that the OP was out of the hand and had access to information that affected his statement to the player.

Now, if the OP had NOT seen the hand and told the player to turn over his cards, would that have been wrong, Zetack?

Re: Slowrolling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, I was wrong earlier- I missed that the OP was out of the hand and had access to information that affected his statement to the player.

Now, if the OP had NOT seen the hand and told the player to turn over his cards, would that have been wrong, Zetack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Larry I've been thinking about this.

I'm revisiting my original ruling. As far as the OP's actions go, do the rules I cited actually apply to him since he's not a player since he busted out (Its not clear whether this is a cash game or a tourney but either way he's out). And don't rules only apply to players?

Now if this is poker etiquette then it should apply to OP because ettiquette applies to everybody. But then if its ettiquette its not actually a rule and binding, its just common practice and what's "polite". Even though the lines I cited appear under Poker Etiquette in Robert's Rules, the first sentence I quoted, providing penalities, [The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:] clearly makes it clearly a rule not simply ettiquette.

So do the rules apply to a non-player? The first rule I cited clearly does not as it prohibits: "Reading a hand for another player at the showdown before it has been placed faceup on the table."

The second rule does not have the word player in it, but I think both by implication, and by our common understanding of the nature of "rules" it too should only apply to players. That rule again prohibits " Telling anyone to turn a hand faceup at the showdown".

So have I flopped positions here? Not quite. Fortunately for preserving the intent of the rules I cited above, we get this rule from Robert's Rules under procedures:

9. Only one person may play a hand.

But since I believe the rules only apply to players this violation belongs not to the OP but to the guy who was getting ready to throw away the winning flush. When he received advice from a person who had seen his hand (and the decision to show or muck is part of the play of the hand) then the advice receiving player was violating the one player to a hand rule and should have been penalized. In this case, by not winning the pot.

Why do I go through all this hoop jumping though? Because I do think a person who has not seen the cards can ask/tell/implore a player to show his hand. It makes no sense to me that an audience member can't shout out: show them! And in that respect the OP if he had not seen the cards would be in the same position as any random person in the stands, he could say show em! The rule against telling a player to showdown doesn't apply since he's not a player himself. And the one person to a hand rule doesn't apply since he hasn't seen the hand and can't possibly be playing it.

--Zetack

Re: Slowrolling
 

Nothing's easy in poker, is it? :P

I struggled with this one also, since if the player has called all bets on the end, then advising them to turn over their hand to make sure they've lost SEEMS appropriate.

If I saw the hand, then "one player to a hand" could apply as you stated. That would be a tough argument to try to use in the heat of the moment.

Re: Slowrolling
 

<<Subtle hijacking in progress>>

To alter this slightly:

WHAT IF - hypothetically - the guy who missed his flush tabled his loser as if he thought he lost...then the dealer looks at the hand - also misses the flush and pulls the cards into the muck pile.

Zeteck and Lottery - how would you feel about an audience member shouting out, "He had a flush! I saw his cards!"

Basically - the cards speak for themselves - but to WHOM?

Re: Slowrolling
 

[ QUOTE ]
<<Subtle hijacking in progress>>

To alter this slightly:

WHAT IF - hypothetically - the guy who missed his flush tabled his loser as if he thought he lost...then the dealer looks at the hand - also misses the flush and pulls the cards into the muck pile.

Zeteck and Lottery - how would you feel about an audience member shouting out, "He had a flush! I saw his cards!"

Basically - the cards speak for themselves - but to WHOM?

[/ QUOTE ]

To everybody, I don't have time to pull up the rules at the moment, but I believe that's specifically addressed, that pretty much everybody has an actual affirmative duty to speak up, including non-players.

Besides cards speak. The better hand has a right to that pot even if he doesn't realize it, even if nobody at the table realizes it, whearas if he mucks it, then he does not.

There is also a rule that if anybody but the "winner" of a hand asks to see a hand that was mucked at showdown, that hand is not live and cannot win the pot even it it turns out to be the best hand. If the "winner" asks to see it though, it is live and can still win the hand if it turns out to be better than the "winner's" hand.

--Zetack

Re: Slowrolling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I expected to read a story about a slowroll and instead get a story about a couple of idiots.
FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]