|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another murky ethics question
If the blind flashed and then mucked his cards, are they still live. I don't think so. The blind should never have been awarded the whole pot. The rule that you must clearly say you are palying the board has not been consistently enforced at the low limit tables at Canturbury.
If neither player objected to the pot being chopped, I don't think the dealer should call the floor over. Chopping is probably the best call in this situation. And no, I don't think you should have said anything about the blind mucking. One player to a hand. It should be up to the other player to figure this out. I lost half a pot the other day because someone told a mucking player to flip his cards over and play the board. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another murky ethics question
Sorry, the button flashed and mucked. The blind should have gotton the whole pot.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another murky ethics question
"If neither player objected to the pot being chopped, I don't think the dealer should call the floor over. Chopping is probably the best call in this situation."
My thoughts exactly. The first rule to settling a dispute is: at least make sure there is one. What gets me is seat changes. A player who thinks he is entitled to a seat but thinks he's about to get screwed, will so so often make a big fuss, ready to go to war over it, when the guy who really is entitled to the seat doesn't even want it. Lots of times I ask the entitled guy if he wants the seat, and he says no, and I tell the upset guy, go ahead, it's your seat, and he's like, wait, that was too easy, I'm not done fighting yet. Tommy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another murky ethics question
Lots of times I ask the entitled guy if he wants the seat, and he says no, and I tell the upset guy, go ahead, it's your seat, and he's like, wait, that was too easy, I'm not done fighting yet.
My favorite dispute from my last session. Player A: bet. Player B: raise. Player A: 3-bet. Player B: 4-bet. Dealer: Burn and turn. Other players: Hey, he hasn't called the 4-bet yet. Dealer: Sorry, -- floorman! Other players: You need to put that last card back in and reshuffle. Player A: Muck. Let's go. Next hand. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another murky ethics question
Something similar happened in a 6-12 home game last night, w/o the dispute:
I bet the turn and was raised. The dealer put up the river card before I called the raise. The psuedo river card was the A [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img]. So I call the bet, he puts the A [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img] back into the deck, shuffles a couple of times, cuts the deck and puts up the new river card, the A [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img]. It was too creepy. Then later the guy next to me showed me his pocket deuces and before the river card was put up i said "deuce of spades." Lo and behold, the river card was the 2 [img]/forums/images/icons/spade.gif[/img]. Then on a later hand, the turn was about to be put up and I said "8 of clubs." The turn was the Q [img]/forums/images/icons/club.gif[/img], which just shows that you can't be right every time. |
|
|