If it was 1811, this guy would have a bullet hole in his forehead. Although maybe the rules were different in 1811
Yea,
And women would be in the kitchen or popping out babies, black folk would be in the field picking cotton, and we'd all be dead by 40. Ahh the good old days.
Seriously, the skill and pride in the game comes from out playing and out maneuvering your opponents. Not because he's sloppy in his etiquette.
Say it's a different game, maybe Monopoly. If the guy was on free parking and rolled a nine, but accidentally counted ten and thought he landed on "Go To Jail" instead of the yellow property, would you not inform him otherwise? What if you're playing cribbage (no Muggins), and they missed a few points? Would you not tell them?
And if you say that it's different because poker has money on the line, you're wrong.
What am I missing here? Glancing through the thread referenced by 13cards, 5 years ago everyone agreed this is a mucked hand. In this thread, the hand is live. Does the definition of a mucked hand really change from room to room? Has the generally accepted definition changed over the past 5 years? Are people ignoring the facts and just responding based on the poster's perceived personality?
What am I missing here? Glancing through the thread referenced by 13cards, 5 years ago everyone agreed this is a mucked hand. In this thread, the hand is live. Does the definition of a mucked hand really change from room to room? Has the generally accepted definition changed over the past 5 years? Are people ignoring the facts and just responding based on the poster's perceived personality?
Nope. In the thread 13CARDS linked, the House Rules clearly state that the actions taken by the player constituted a "muck". There were no such House Rules in place in this thread, thus the hand is live and cards speak.
I'm ok with other players assisting, assuming the kitten had rolled over his cards but when he clearly intends to fold FACE DOWN and then some jackass chimes in with hey who has a straight or hey look the flush just completed then I would tell them in no uncertain terms to STFU.
There is a big difference between asking for help and some know it all calling out every board. Clearly that is a no-no.
What am I missing here? Glancing through the thread referenced by 13cards, 5 years ago everyone agreed this is a mucked hand. In this thread, the hand is live. Does the definition of a mucked hand really change from room to room? Has the generally accepted definition changed over the past 5 years? Are people ignoring the facts and just responding based on the poster's perceived personality?
I went back and checked, but I'm happy to see that I'm saying approx. the same thing!
I went back and checked, but I'm happy to see that I'm saying approx. the same thing!
Mark
. . . about two completely different scenarios. Might want to examine your logic, Mark.
As stated previous, in the linked example there is a clear rule as to what constituted a "muck", and BBC's actions met those rules. Result: mucked hand. In the OP's example, no clear rules exist, cards were easily identifiable and turned up. Result: not mucked.
. . . about two completely different scenarios. Might want to examine your logic, Mark.
As stated previous, in the linked example there is a clear rule as to what constituted a "muck", and BBC's actions met those rules. Result: mucked hand. In the OP's example, no clear rules exist, cards were easily identifiable and turned up. Result: not mucked.
But at least you're right this time around.
Not as distant as you think
The actions are the same, the scenarios are different. My basic opinion in both was that it shouldn't be dead, but in the 5 yr. ago example, the rule caught him. Further, if you'll notice, Zithal in the old thread mentions it's to prevent angle shooting (i.e. the spirit of the rule as I mentioned here).
In both cases, I think anyone not being a dink wouldn't rule it dead. Beat the guy with the game, not with loopholes.
The Rule, in the first example, did not catch anyone. The Rule was merely interpreted by the Floor to render a decision.
In the absence of consensus on what the "spirit" of the rule might be, someone has to be the arbiter. Where no Rule exists, someone needs to make a decision.
Your consistency to some "spirit" is puzzling, given your previously expressed disdain for such constructs . . .
Okay that last bit is just me having fun, but still . . .
It's meant to prevent people from angle shooting, it's there to ensure a guy doesn't try to fish better cards from dead cards.
If his hand can be identified, it's live. Anyone that's arguing otherwise, well, they're just whining because they wanted to win when they shouldn't have. Same goes for the guy chipping in his two cents.
But, and this is the point of the whole discussion we've been having, the guy chipping in his $0.02 is violating the "spirit" of the Rule which states, "one player to a hand" (ie STFU when not in the hand). Worse, he has affected the outcome of a hand by doing so. The fact that it was the correct outcome (when all the whining stops) is irrelevant.
You cannot advocate for the "spirit" of one Rule, while absolving a breach of another.
It's meant to prevent people from angle shooting, it's there to ensure a guy doesn't try to fish better cards from dead cards.
If his hand can be identified, it's live. Anyone that's arguing otherwise, well, they're just whining because they wanted to win when they shouldn't have. Same goes for the guy chipping in his two cents.
But, and this is the point of the whole discussion we've been having, the guy chipping in his $0.02 is violating the "spirit" of the Rule which states, "one player to a hand" (ie STFU when not in the hand). Worse, he has affected the outcome of a hand by doing so. The fact that it was the correct outcome (when all the whining stops) is irrelevant.
You cannot advocate for the "spirit" of one Rule, while absolving a breach of another.
No..
the one player per hand rule is - IMO - to prevent someone from saying something that may influence actual gameplay "Hey, he's got nothing, get it in there, trust me", or "Oh fuck, that dude's only bet the nuts on the river all day". Which will influence the actual strategic / development of gameplay.
In this case, the "game" is over. So, I'm not changing my stance on the spirit of the rules.
the one player per hand rule is - IMO - to prevent someone from saying something that may influence actual gameplay "Hey, he's got nothing, get it in there, trust me", or "Oh fuck, that dude's only bet the nuts on the river all day". Which will influence the actual strategic / development of gameplay.
In this case, the "game" is over. So, I'm not changing my stance on the spirit of the rules.
Mark
P.S. - No, I'm not a Dr. the name's phonetic...
The hand was not over, as the pot had not yet been awarded. The comment influenced the outcome of the hand. The comment was a breach of your precious "spirit" of the rules. Is it so hard for you to admit you are wrong? Because you are, and I am not the only one saying so . . .
In fact, my final comment in this thread was going to be "I'm not wrong". You guys are still ignoring why the rule is there. The only one that has come close is Moose for posting that rules (which I assume is Robert's rules).
All the "play" in a hand is over once the last bet has been called / folded to. Any antics before showing hands (i.e. hollywooding / slowrolling / general douchebaggery, etc) isn't part of the game, it's someone being a dick.
As for the guy making a comment and having it affect the outcome of the game, well, again, IMO the one player / hand is to not affect the play of the hand by talking about a person's tells / tendencies / etc. The guy simply said "Straight is out there with a J", and the player turned over his cards after retrieving them (again, they didn't touch a muck or the dealer didn't collect them).
So, in summary, I believe that you should apply rules based on the spirit of the rules, rather than the word of them. >Loopholes and misinterpretations are abound whenever you try and legislate anything and people will try to manipulate them to fit their needs (see numerous threads by 13cards). The rules in dispute here are
What constitutes a muck: In this case, neither muck nor dealer touched the fella's cards, the player had control of them and revealed them (albeit after another person's verbal observations).
Bringing us to
One player / hand: I again think this is so that players don't play-by-play when a person when they're not in the hand. In this case, the person's input resulted only in the player doing what he should have anyways and flipped his cards over. He didn't influence bets, checks, folds, or even sizing of the pot.
The spirit of the rules is generally to make sure nobody cheats or makes the game unfair for others. Protect your hand is to ensure there is no doubt that your hand is the one that you started with, that no cards were switched - the spirit applied here. The second is to ensure nobody is influencing play of hands in which they were not involved, which again didn't happen here.
Having said that, it bring us back to... I'm not wrong.
I can no longer resist. My first response was going to be when OP gets dealt a hand.
when is your next trip to the GTA again?? Still waiting for you to show me how to play this game. Sorry, no Chris M. hands this time. He was in the 5/10 game.
Comments
If it was 1811, this guy would have a bullet hole in his forehead. Although maybe the rules were different in 1811
Yea,
And women would be in the kitchen or popping out babies, black folk would be in the field picking cotton, and we'd all be dead by 40. Ahh the good old days.
Seriously, the skill and pride in the game comes from out playing and out maneuvering your opponents. Not because he's sloppy in his etiquette.
Say it's a different game, maybe Monopoly. If the guy was on free parking and rolled a nine, but accidentally counted ten and thought he landed on "Go To Jail" instead of the yellow property, would you not inform him otherwise? What if you're playing cribbage (no Muggins), and they missed a few points? Would you not tell them?
And if you say that it's different because poker has money on the line, you're wrong.
Mark
Big mouth could not have known, with certainty, if a jack was being mucked. He just felt like showing how smart he was . . .
Again, one player to a hand.
Nope. In the thread 13CARDS linked, the House Rules clearly state that the actions taken by the player constituted a "muck". There were no such House Rules in place in this thread, thus the hand is live and cards speak.
And, yes, practices do change from room to room
I hate when other players try show off their skills by guessing hole cards or pointing out hidden straights when the hand is still live.
There is a big difference between asking for help and some know it all calling out every board. Clearly that is a no-no.
I went back and checked, but I'm happy to see that I'm saying approx. the same thing!
Mark
. . . about two completely different scenarios. Might want to examine your logic, Mark.
As stated previous, in the linked example there is a clear rule as to what constituted a "muck", and BBC's actions met those rules. Result: mucked hand. In the OP's example, no clear rules exist, cards were easily identifiable and turned up. Result: not mucked.
But at least you're right this time around.
Not as distant as you think
The actions are the same, the scenarios are different. My basic opinion in both was that it shouldn't be dead, but in the 5 yr. ago example, the rule caught him. Further, if you'll notice, Zithal in the old thread mentions it's to prevent angle shooting (i.e. the spirit of the rule as I mentioned here).
In both cases, I think anyone not being a dink wouldn't rule it dead. Beat the guy with the game, not with loopholes.
Mark
In the absence of consensus on what the "spirit" of the rule might be, someone has to be the arbiter. Where no Rule exists, someone needs to make a decision.
Your consistency to some "spirit" is puzzling, given your previously expressed disdain for such constructs . . .
Okay that last bit is just me having fun, but still . . .
It's meant to prevent people from angle shooting, it's there to ensure a guy doesn't try to fish better cards from dead cards.
If his hand can be identified, it's live. Anyone that's arguing otherwise, well, they're just whining because they wanted to win when they shouldn't have. Same goes for the guy chipping in his two cents.
Mark
You cannot advocate for the "spirit" of one Rule, while absolving a breach of another.
i just realized your not a doctor.....
But he is an amateur Gynecologist.
fyp
No..
the one player per hand rule is - IMO - to prevent someone from saying something that may influence actual gameplay "Hey, he's got nothing, get it in there, trust me", or "Oh fuck, that dude's only bet the nuts on the river all day". Which will influence the actual strategic / development of gameplay.
In this case, the "game" is over. So, I'm not changing my stance on the spirit of the rules.
Mark
P.S. - No, I'm not a Dr. the name's phonetic...
Although the comment did impact the outcome of the hand.
lol, darb comes thru once again!:D
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.
Making statements or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play, whether or not the offender is involved in the pot.
The hand was not over, as the pot had not yet been awarded. The comment influenced the outcome of the hand. The comment was a breach of your precious "spirit" of the rules. Is it so hard for you to admit you are wrong? Because you are, and I am not the only one saying so . . .
In fact, my final comment in this thread was going to be "I'm not wrong". You guys are still ignoring why the rule is there. The only one that has come close is Moose for posting that rules (which I assume is Robert's rules).
All the "play" in a hand is over once the last bet has been called / folded to. Any antics before showing hands (i.e. hollywooding / slowrolling / general douchebaggery, etc) isn't part of the game, it's someone being a dick.
Example: Is this an example of poker skills?
YouTube - Tobias Reinkemeier vs Roland De Wolfe - Sick hand at EPT Barcelona 2009
Nope, douchery.
As for the guy making a comment and having it affect the outcome of the game, well, again, IMO the one player / hand is to not affect the play of the hand by talking about a person's tells / tendencies / etc. The guy simply said "Straight is out there with a J", and the player turned over his cards after retrieving them (again, they didn't touch a muck or the dealer didn't collect them).
So, in summary, I believe that you should apply rules based on the spirit of the rules, rather than the word of them. >Loopholes and misinterpretations are abound whenever you try and legislate anything and people will try to manipulate them to fit their needs (see numerous threads by 13cards). The rules in dispute here are
What constitutes a muck: In this case, neither muck nor dealer touched the fella's cards, the player had control of them and revealed them (albeit after another person's verbal observations).
Bringing us to
One player / hand: I again think this is so that players don't play-by-play when a person when they're not in the hand. In this case, the person's input resulted only in the player doing what he should have anyways and flipped his cards over. He didn't influence bets, checks, folds, or even sizing of the pot.
The spirit of the rules is generally to make sure nobody cheats or makes the game unfair for others. Protect your hand is to ensure there is no doubt that your hand is the one that you started with, that no cards were switched - the spirit applied here. The second is to ensure nobody is influencing play of hands in which they were not involved, which again didn't happen here.
Having said that, it bring us back to... I'm not wrong.
Mark
what was the deal here...he needed to show both cards before mucking?...
WTF, are you on a bad dial up connection? I expected this at least a day ago.
when is your next trip to the GTA again?? Still waiting for you to show me how to play this game. Sorry, no Chris M. hands this time. He was in the 5/10 game.
lololololol.:laugh:
I thought you quit poker?
Things are slow in this pos city. Especially when its minus 25 for 3 weeks straight.