I let it go.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
This is unbelievable. It's outrageous

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure "outrageous" is the word you were going for, but that nitpicking aside, I do agree with the thinking behind your point, that being what Josh did SHOULDN'T be remarkable, as it is what people SHOULD do. However, since most people don't do it, it IS remarkable, as I would imagine that if you put 100 players in that same situation, a vast majority would do something, admittedly, immature and inappropriate.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
"But for many new to casino poker learning a lesson "the hard way" means it is the last time they play in a casino poker game. Losing those players is bad for all of us."

Respect your opinion Rick but, two things. One is that you think many of the new ones won't come back. I disagree. Now it's a debate of whether or not the new people in a card room intend to play more and will accept it, or whether they're one shot wonders who'll take this excuse to never go to a card room again. I'd bet more are in the hard lesson camp who'll return.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree most will come back. That said, I tend to be in the "best hand gets the pot whenever reasonable and possible" school. IMO card club/casino rules and policies should protect ordinary customers (who in a sense are the better player's "customers") from innocent mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]
Second - "I wish more floormen posted here" is exactly why you want something definitive, like the muck. When it comes to a hand being good to award a pot to, you can only have one set of rules. To say that one set "is discretionary" is a cop out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I wish more people who work or have worked in cardrooms posted here about stuff like rules and procedures. I need company [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Who would disagree that the play of the hand rules (including showdown rules) actually enforced in casinos and clubs need to be clarified. The debate is how it should be clarified.

[ QUOTE ]
say again that the only time a hand should be retrieved from the muck is when it was tabled face up and the dealer mistakenly put it there. Then again, I can see how being a former floorman can make you see otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been a player first. Retrieving the best hand when innocently mucked is good for players IMHO.

Regards,

Rick

[schroedy]

I really think we should train and encourage players to show their cards -- AND QUICKLY -- at showdown.

I cannot tell you how incredibly stupid I think all the dramatics, theatrics and shenanigans to avoid showing your hand are. I would support a rule that imposed a 2 Big Bet penalty on any idiot slowing the game down with some kind of slow roll routine. I suppose by extension, I should support any rule that tends to disqualify a hand not wanted to be shown.

What I would really support is a B&M version of the Party Poker rule -- all hands still live at showdown are/must be shown (in a way, at least, on Party) -- PROMPTLY.

[ChineseLightning]

so its funny that you mention this story cause i played in tahoe this weekend and the question came up. I asked to see a mucked hand on a called river which i was not involved in. the dealer told me i couldnt see it because i was not involved in the hand. I told her that seemed strange. She agreed. she said, "Its not normally done in casinos, but how would you feel if someone not in the hand cost you a pot cause he asked to see a mucked hand?"

[Randy_Refeld]

I came to this thread late. I originally overlooked it, but someone sent me a PM asking me to take a look. In my experience the most heated debates in a cardroom occur when the rules state something along the lines of "a hand may be dead." Players and inexperienced floorman often take that to mean "a hand is dead." "A hand may be dead" has the same meaning as "a hand may be live," "a hand may be live or dead," or what the author of the rules intended "a discrepancy has occurred, call the floorman." The written rule in most of these cases is simply the floorman will decide based on teh facts of this case considering what is fair to all parties and what is in the best interest of the game.
In all the cases Rick mentioned above the player's hand is live. The most fundamental rule in poker is the best hand wins. Forward motion as a concept exists when there is pending action. I understand a lot of players think a hand should be dead for touching the muck; in most rooms there is no support for that in the rules.
In the original hand that was played the floor should have been called. After determining what happened the floor should explain to the table that it is important not to commnet on anotehr player's hand, next he should explain the policy of ABC casino is the best hand wins so have the dealer award the pot and then get away from the table becasue there will be players that will want to argue about the decision.
In general the best interest of the game and the best hand winning coincide. It is unfortunate that some people open their mouths when they shouldn't. Anyone who has called the bets and has the best hand is entitled to the pot. Anyone with a second best hand that asks the floor to declare the best hand so they can win is a not. Any time a hand is on the table face up when the floor arrives (with obvious exceptions) meets the criteria for being retrievable.

Randy Refeld

[mmcd]

I asked to see a mucked hand on a called river which i was not involved in.

Don't do this.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think we should train and encourage players to show their cards -- AND QUICKLY -- at showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

You show them quickly or however you like.

I'll do it my way.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Tell me how this could be inplemented and enforced in a practical manner.

~ Rick

[Josh W]

I fear that I accentuated the wrong point in my post. I fully agree with you that there is ALWAYS a better alternative than verbally berating a lady, and finding such a way is not remarkable.

The important part that unfortunately went unemphasized was knowing myself well enough to know that if I were to try to politely say something, an argument would likely ensue, and I'd get...emotional (in what should be an emotionless game).

Somebody 'cheated' (too harsh of a word) and cost me a 29BB pot. I could either say something, or say nothing. (see, this time I don't use the word "berate"). This was a unique situation, I feel, where saying nothing was the right thing to do. THAT was my point.

You are 100% right, though. Somebody doing something they should do (such as "not berating" a lady) is NOT remarkable, commendable, or even noteworth.

Josh

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I came to this thread late. I originally overlooked it, but someone sent me a PM asking me to take a look.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guilty of PMing Randy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. We worked together at the Bike and Randy has been in the industry for years, including stints managing rooms. I trust his opinion on these matters.

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience the most heated debates in a cardroom occur when the rules state something along the lines of "a hand may be dead." Players and inexperienced floorman often take that to mean "a hand is dead." "A hand may be dead" has the same meaning as "a hand may be live," "a hand may be live or dead," or what the author of the rules intended "a discrepancy has occurred, call the floorman." The written rule in most of these cases is simply the floorman will decide based on the facts of this case considering what is fair to all parties and what is in the best interest of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see the poker rule books stripped down so that most policies (e.g., must moves, etiquette, seating) are removed and put elsewhere (perhaps on easy to update wall charts, flyers or a separate pamphlet of house policies). The rules need to concentrate on the play of the hand from the posting of blinds or antes to the awarding of the pot. Also note that policies tend to change frequently and differ between clubs; the "play of the hand" rules tend to be more standardized (at least within regions) and change far more slowly.

Some things just aren't clear cut so areas where judgement calls should be used cannot be completely removed; that said, allowing the floor to use a high degree of judgement in a call should be kept to a minimum.

[ QUOTE ]
In all the cases Rick mentioned above the player's hand is live. The most fundamental rule in poker is the best hand wins. Forward motion as a concept exists when there is pending action. I understand a lot of players think a hand should be dead for touching the muck; in most rooms there is no support for that in the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the casino personnel I've spoken with wouldn't rule the hand live in all cases mentioned in my post above (this was where I described the cases verbally, perhaps they would agree with the more precisely worded print examples). Many believe that once the hand is pushed toward the muck (even if it doesn't touch the muck or get intermingled), a third party's comment can no longer be used to retrieve the hand. They essentially argue that allowing this provides for a player to act twice on his hand. OTOH, if the third party mentions that Player A overlooked the straight while Player A was holding his hand up (but not yet tabled), they all (so far) agree that Player A's hand is live.

I disagree as explained elsewhere. As long as action is complete, I believe every effort must be made to award the pot to the best hand, as long as it is clearly identifiable. That's how I interpret "Cards Speak".

[ QUOTE ]
In the original hand that was played the floor should have been called. After determining what happened the floor should explain to the table that it is important not to comment on another player's hand, next he should explain the policy of ABC casino is the best hand wins so have the dealer award the pot and then get away from the table because there will be players that will want to argue about the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point about getting away from the table [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thanks Randy,

Rick