Just got another few texts from the host. I was going to take screenshots but that's a lot of work so the gist of it is:

He said he's extremely embarrassed about last session and that both he and his uncle had a few too many drinks. Jack also said it didn't excuse any of his behaviour and I was welcome back any time because the game was going awesome.. At first, at least.

He also said his uncle wasn't going to be there, and the stakes were going to be lowered a bit so it's more of a friendlier atmosphere.

What's my play here? Do you guys think there should be no way I ever go back? FWIW my fishing buddy who told me about the game is going to be there, so I'm not going to be there all 'alone' this time.

Like I said, the game actually was pretty sweet before all that drama, and the game starts in half an hour, 45 mins from now. It's pretty tempting, I'm just not sure I should even bother. Would any of you go back? Because it seems like the overwhelming majority of posters ITT wouldn't even consider it.

I would not go back. It is only a matter of time before a similar situation occurs.

Fool me once shame on you. fool me twice.... well you know how this goes. I would not be shocked if the "uncle" shows up again and the whole routine ( or a variation on it) starts up. Are there no other better home games you could attend in your area? Sorry if this is your only choice. I would feel extremely uncomfortable sitting down at that table to say the least. If you do go back, and something crappy happens again like your OP, then it's on you really. Good luck. Choose wisely.

If you go back and there is even 1 single issue, you have 100%, without question, only yourself to blame (no matter how "good" the game is). You have a choice, make the correct one.

Don't enable j/o's.

Did you go?

Personally, the whole thing rests on trusting the fairness of the host, and your host got drunk and tried to steal your money. I couldn't see going back.

Let me summarize:

Hero normally plays $0.5/$1 or lower. Hero's main game is not holdem.

Hero gets invited to a $5/$5 hold'em game while helping out someone working on their boat. It isn't clear if this is an underground for profit game or someone's home game.

The game turns out to be a seven handed nit festival and somehow the game is switched to a $1/$2 PLO game.

Hero makes out well in the game at the expense of someone who appears not the know how to play Omaha in even a basic way. The host is related to the big loser and tries to get his uncle's money back in many ways, including threats of violence by the uncle.

Hero has trouble cashing out but does get home with most of his winnings.

Now Hero has an apology and an invitation to the game where the uncle isn't going to be there.

The idea the game changes from $5/$5 holdem to $1/$2 PLO in the middle of the session stinks. "Oh my, our normal $5/$5 is too tight so let's change to $1/$2 PLO" isn't something I would expect to happen at games I play. These guys act like they play together so the action on Hero's night isn't likely to be so different from the action other games.

The table just sits there for twenty minutes while the host/uncle try to talk Hero out of his winnings? Not something I'd expect. After a short jawboning session, someone is going to deal the next hand or start making noise about getting the game going. Come on, most people must know the rules to Omaha.

Threats of violence aren't at all common in the games I play. The only one I remember is after someone questioned the chastity of one guy's wife and teenage daughter. And the threats were made to the new guy, bad for the game and bad for everyone's safety since the new guy might well decide to make use of his concealed carry permit. Really??

And why is a $360 loss on one hand so big a deal for guys playing $5/$5? Seems like something rather small for the stakes these guys normally play.

The Question: should Hero go to the game? My answer is absolutely not. There are all sorts of strange things about this game beyond the uncle/host/payout issues. Maybe nothing goes wrong - but the potential for trouble seems high.

DrStrange

I'm answering the next day. I wonder whether you went to the game or not. On the basis of what you wrote originally, I do not have much respect for the host. I don't hang out with people I don't respect.

But that's me. If you like and respect the host, I hope you did what felt good to you.

I wonder what you mean by "sweet." I wonder if you mean "pleasant" or "lucrative." (Or both).

Half an hour is 30 minutes, not 45 minutes.

Then you should have gone.

I don't understand why it would be a bother.

I would not go back. But that's me, not you. If you want to go back, then go back.

Buzz

I don't disagree, the situation was ****ing absurd. I'm not exaggerating when I say it took that long for another hand, they wouldn't let up.

As for the $360 loss being to big for them, I thought the same thing. I'm not sure it's a regular $5/5 NLH game though, with how fast they were willing to switch to PLO.

That being said, and im not sure this has any relevance, but the game was crazy short stacked when we were playing Hold'em. I only bought in for $300, because that's what the two other biggest stacks bought in for. Everyone else bought in for $200. So maybe $360 is a pretty big loss, especially for your drunken uncle.

And just to clarify, I didn't go back. I felt like if I went back and any scumbag actions went down, no matter how small, I wouldn't be able to complain about them. I'd be bringing it on myself going back after all of that.

Oops maybe it looked weird when I wrote it, but he meant it started in thirty to fourty five minutes.

And by sweet I meant it just seemed like a good game to play in general, although a bit too high for me probably. Good cards, good chips, everything was comfortable and friendly, at least friendly at first.

Thanks for the replies everyone, guess there's nothing left to talk about! Shame because as far as I know that's the only game in this small town.. I was kinda excited when my buddy even let me know about it!

Oh well, such is life.. Maybe ill degen off some money online again soon.

Pity, indeed.

Why didn't anyone else speak up? Seems more the tables duty to speak up on the rules than someone already involved in a massive pot.

Secondly I wonder if the most +EV play would be to give back the last bet (around $100?), someone this unfamiliar with the game with a temper like his would pay dividends over the years at $5/$5.

Lastly, lol at players giving back the money out of moral obligation alone. This epidemic of poker Jesus's on 2+2 is hilarious, but sounds lucrative so keep it up. Remember, God is watching

It must be a very small town indeed for this small crew to be the only home game in town. It's possible of course, but I would look around some before giving up on finding another home game. Is there a larger city close by? Casinos? Free bar leagues? Charity Tournaments? These are all good places to make connections on home games. It is how we started our long term friday night cash games. I understand it's not 2007 anymore , and it's not as easy as it used to be meeting and recruiting from Bar/Bowling Alley Leagues. Good luck.

Your line of thinking kinda makes sense. However, you're missing a key thing: Uncle isn't just a sucker playing poker. He and his nephew, based on OP's account, are swindlers or at least bullies.

I wouldn't be surprised if Uncle does suck at poker (most people who pull shenanigans do), but he knew the rules of Omaha and tried to float that "one-card flush" nonsense on purpose as part of some ham-handed scam.

Think about it: If his aces are good, he tricked OP into calling with a weak hand, thinking he had a bare A and little else. If his aces are no good, he and the host can do what they did and maybe get the player to give money back.

I would barely be willing to consider this possibility except that they tried way too hard to twist rules and make **** up to get OP to give up his money. They tried to threaten and coerce him too. Host even tried to invent yet another "offense" OP committed that should result in him giving Uncle some money. If he were to give $100 to people like that, they'd probably never let their hooks out of him. Then he's the sucker.

You handle it admirably! Although, you should not have stayed the extra 45 minutes. I would of said, "**** off, pay me" and left after the hand. Sticking around an extra 45 minutes after this incident doesn't do anyone any good. It's obvious the uncle is a complete douche bag idiot and the host has not idea how to be a host.

I think one takeaway from this fiasco is that the question "Does everyone know the rules?" can be problematic. If you ask that question to two peple, and one of them does know all the rules, while the other thinks he does but is missing one of them, they're both going to give the same answer.

Years ago I played a game of chess with a co-worker. I had never played him before. At some point I had the opportunity to make an en passant capture. I decided to play it, even though I had a feeling what was going to come next. Sure enough, he asked me what in the hell do I think I'm doing, I'm making up rules as I go along, etc. I had to Google "rules of chess" and prove to him that the en passant capture is a real thing. He reluctantly accepted that it was legal, saying "Well I still don't like it. It's cheap." Could I have alleviated this problem by asking him before the game "Do you know all of the rules?" Not likely. But it's also not practical to quiz him on his knowledge of the rules of chess. "Do you know about pawn promotion? Do you know about castling? Do you know when you can and can't castle?* Do you know about en passant? Do you know when you can do it?"

I'm not trying to compare a relatively obscure rule in chess to one of the main features of Omaha, but the fact that there are so few rules in Omaha (or rather, so few difference in the rules between Omaha and Holdem) means that it actually is practical to quickly run through them with everyone. No need to even ask if everyone knows the rules. "Okay, everyone knows we get dealt 4 cards but you have to use exactly 2 of them, right?" You'll get a bunch of stares and "well, duh!" reactions, but someone at the table might be silently thanking you for saving them some embarassment (and money).

* That's another rule I've gotten into a disagreement over.

Or you could have a crew that doesn't mind answering a simple/basic rules question, EVEN if it is in the middle of a hand. I , for one , don't believe someone doesn't understand the 2 cards play aspect of Omaha variants like the "uncle" claimed. This is 2015 after all.

Now I do understand that a mostly NLH player might have a brain fart from time to time when the games switches to PLO and have the 2 card rule re enforced in a negative way! LOL Been there. I think the OP is something else than ignorance or a brain fart.

LOL NO

That's why you should always bring a gun to those games.
People tend to bs a lot less when they know you are coked up and armed.
Could've prevented that whole situation from happening in the first place.

Hope this is a Troll/Level post.