Quote:
Originally Posted by jzpiano
What rules do you use? If you don't know then that's the overlaying issue and ultimately the first place you should start. If you do, and I'm going off the assumption that you use RROP then this is an easy solution, consult the rule book. If you did that you would see that your hunch was correct and that the river should be shuffled back in and a new river dealt (no burn). No player should ever have a choice on whether or not they get to keep a river, similar to if a card gets flipped on the deal. Too many chances to angle. Get your rulebook in order, stick to it, and ultimately people will enjoy the game more.
Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk
Thanks. For a long time, I'm the rules guy. I know RROP, read 2+2 (hope they don't) and have been playing well over 20 years with lots of different groups and 'tweaked' rule sets. I put the proper ruling out there, the group declined it. Perhaps it's my fault for not arguing stronger, but the group tends to be a 'cross that bridge when we get to it' type.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sw_emigre
Your game always sounds like a blast, but I prob would have had a seizure if I'd been there that night. Basically that was FUBAR every step of the way.
In theory I'm with you, in that a proactive approach to determining rules would be best. But for the most part, there hasn't been any serious damage yet, and I'm assuming most people won't want to change until there is. I'd discuss possibly adding some more strictness in private with the host and 1-3 key players. Once they have agreed, then you know you can make a public presentation and you'll have the buy-in of the important people to get most of your agenda passed. I used to be a community organizer, and this was how we got stuff done. Get a couple key leaders on board in private, then you can weather the public blowback from loud but ultimately less influential people.
But damn, if I was in that pot and the ruling went down as played, and then was overturned anyway, eeeeeeeks.
Thanks. It really has been a lot of fun with the current gang. There have been a couple recent hiccups, but in general, we're playing for such low stakes, that nobody is going crazy.
Yeah, sorry to report that I was dealing, in a departure from the usual games I call.
Yes again, they won't want a rulebook, until there is a serious problem. I'll probably float the idea of a 'semi-official' rule book to the group when we assemble for the next game. If it looks like it has the support of those key guys, then I'll start the Herculean task of writing procedures for mistakes in games that sometimes have little room for mistakes.
Flop was 9s6s2d. A small bet called 6 ways. Turn was a Th. Players discarded and then I burned and turned the river Td. Player C was adamant about it playing, he had T2. Player D also wanted it to play, he had the case T. Player F wanted it discarded, as he had 96.
If I'm a player in the pot, I'm arguing for the 'proper' ruling, regardless of my holding. As I had folded, I let them sort things out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
That is pretty crazy that they all "agreed" to do a coin flip to see if the card played or not, but then decided to void the hand. And void the hand and give some people money back, but leave some money in the pot? Bizarre, hard to believe that anyone went for that plan.
Yes, it was a shock to see the coin flip 'voided'.
As mentioned, it's small stakes, very social. I was one of the guys who left money (I think a buck) in the pot. If the other folder wanted his back, he never said anything. The rest of the players who took the last bet back, left he buck in as well.