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 [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[4_2_it]

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