The argument has been that you lose value from the times an incompetent floor person rules in favor of the angler. It's an argument that is impossible to argue against. If it were up to me, we would just fire all of the incompetent floor persons.

It occurs to me that "just color up" is another example of blaming the victim under the guise of looking out for him. Sure, we can just color up. Or we can stop being afraid of protecting the victims from those who intentionally impair their own hearing.

"I have yet to understand why not wearing that skirt is such a big deal." This shouldn't sit well with anyone, but consider this thread and the arguments herein. We are telling potential victims to act differently lest their actions invite consequences that they would only ever suffer because we accept it as a reasonably conceivable outcome. Let's stop accepting it.

You don't have to but the rules of the room where you play will not protect you if your opponent does not match your verbal bet. Refer to the thread about the guy who wears the Burger King crown for just one example. I have seen other situations where someone in player B's shoes refuses to put in more chips and there is nothing the casino can do to make him do it.

And a ruling will not always go in your favor. In a situation that mirrors the one at the top of this thread I've seen it ruled in the room where you play that Player B was not obligated to put any more chips in than he already did.

So was player A wrong to not put his chips in? No. But depending on the ruling in the situation in this thread, it still may have cost him.

House rules are like lines painted on the pavement to indicate a pedestrian crossing.

Nice in theory, but they can't stop a SUV going 45 driven by a distracted BBV poster using his 2+2 app.

One's goal should not to have the House rules protect you, but to have zero chance of being adversely affected by an incompetent or biased Dealer, Floor, or Shift Manager.

Oh ****, they let BBV posters drive? Like, motor vehicles? ****'s sake.

It's a call.

But there is a caveat. Casinos usually can't compel people to put chips into the pot by force. If the headphone player wanted to be a dick, he could get up and leave without completing the bet, though the initial 70 "bet" is gone, it will get him banned, but he could save money

If you aren't sure what bet you are facing, it's up to YOU to make it clear.

Lol @ headphone guy, my only question is was the amount of additional cash he owed mor or less than the cost of the headphones... It would be just so fitting if he had a pair of 200 headphones on costing him a 150 pot,,,lol bad.....

I have been lurking in these threads for a long time, for my own personal education on things. I'm just compelled to point out a few things because it seems these threads get completely out of control and hyperphilosophical for no reason.

Results-based thinking: "If Player A had done X, this wouldn't have happened; therefore Player A should have done X." Wrong. Player A should have done what was required of him. Is verbal binding? Then it doesn't matter if he was doing the Macarena at the same time. He verbalized. The dealer seemed to know exactly what was intended.

"Player A should not have tabled his hand until he was sure he was called by Player B." He was. Does throwing chips in mean it's a call? Then Player B called. Ship the money. Did the dealer confirm it was a call? Then why would player A think anything less?

"Well I think you should put all chips in, verbalize, draw a picture, make a sign in 5 languages, and do an interpretive dance, to avoid any ambiguity." Irrelevant. This is why casinos have official rules.

"What if the guy takes his chips and runs?!" These are getting thinner and thinner as we progress. If you make a bad ruling because you're afraid of this happening, then the terrorists have won.

When "I wasn't paying attention" (in any form) gets you money back in poker, we're all doomed.

^ lurked this long and still completely misses the point

If you cross the street without looking first while you have a walk signal, you followed the rules and did nothing illegal, but you could still wind up dead. I'll watch for traffic too and stay alive.

I hear what you're saying but the title ends in "Ruling?" not "General Advice?" Also that logic can be taken to any extreme and, IMO, is so in these threads. You can treat every green light as a stop sign in case someone runs a red light, too, but that's impractical. It would save lives, though.

I don't think he is missing the point. It's about playing the game, being involved in the moment, and letting players at the table feel like they are in a safe playing environment where money is involved.

In your analogy, we would need concrete barriers to cross streets safely, because "headphone driver" is stopped, and in his own little world he sees a green light, ignores the dealer-policeman directing traffic ,and without even looking takes his foot off the brakes.

https://twitter.com/MazeOrBowie/stat...05697541869568

Doing what's required is one thing. But if you don't want to be involved in problems, often it's a good idea to do more than what's required. These people at the table are your customers. Hold yourself to a higher standard than you do them.

It's not enough to be able to justify a call through rules interpretations. Your bet is truly called only when your opponent agrees that he called. That was not the case here. And since the opponent didn't think he had called, tabling your hand makes it much harder to convince him that the rules support a call. Player A didn't do anything "wrong", but he also could have done things better.

Official rules are very flexible and fluid. I'd rather not rely on the whims of the floorperson. I'd rather take my time and make sure my opponent accepts his action.

How do you recommend we physically remove chips from a player's stack? We can't force him to pay. We can kick him out if he refuses, but that's about it. The only person who risks suffering here is Player A. So why not heighten your situational awareness and recognize these problems before they get out of hand? It can only earn you money and avoid conflicts. I see no downside.

Or just look around you and pick up on the cues that the driver doesn't recognize the situation the same as you do.

I recomend that you do it the same way you would if he pushed his stack over the line but then took them back after seeing his opponents hand. Are you still believing their is nothing we can do?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using 2+2 Forums

In the one case, the player felt that he was calling, and the camera backs it up. In this case, the player didn't believe he was calling the bet. When dealing with players, that makes quite a bit of difference. I've never seen any floor take chips out of someone's stack.

A countless number of my opponents wish this were true.

What you say makes sense, but it also makes sense that the more you do on your own, the more you risk doing "wrong," either by accident or by being misinterpreted. IME your safest bet is to have your actions confirmed by the dealer, and your opponent's actions confirmed by the dealer, if a favorable floor ruling is what you're concerned about. If you and the dealer agree but your opponent doesn't, it's always 2 against one in your favor, and the dealer's story usually gets precedence. Player A did exactly that, and got a favorable ruling.

There is a logical deficiency here that is hard for me to explain but here goes: If you're concerned with the agreement of the opponent that he actually called, but saying it doesn't matter that Player A was well within the rules with what he did, then you're nullifying the need for any extra effort on the part of Player A with your own argument. No matter what length A goes to, B can just disagree that he called. "I didn't hear or see." Poof.

Side note: Player A cannot be harmed by Player B's ignorance. He can either break even or be helped, depending on the ruling. If B were paying attention, he likely would have folded.

Generally yes but some rules are your bread and butter, handed down on tablets. Borata's is "verbal is binding," for example. I can sit on my hands, say $205, and spit out a white chip, and no matter what ever happens, I owe $205 and people have to call $205, as long as it was heard by--and especially repeated by--the dealer. The day the floor doesn't uphold that I'll eat my hat.


My last two statements were unrelated. From what I gather you can't forcefully remove chips from a player if he chooses not to put them up. My point was that if the fear of that happening is guiding our actions we might as well stay home.

Although, now I understand how these get so philosophical and analysed to death. This would be much easier if you were stupid and making bad points.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Your safest bet is to have your opponent understand what he's doing and accept the consequences of his actions before you do something to give him extra incentive to weasel out of it.

Someone paying attention to this situation should realize that there's potential for misunderstanding here. The wave of the hand of Player A (which is usually a check). The headphones worn by Player B. The putting out of a specific bet rather than saying "I call" and throwing in a couple of chips or all of the chips. The order of events.

There's a lot here to clue you in that a potential problem is in the works. If I'm Player A, I'm not tabling my hand here. I don't care what the dealer says. I need confirmation from the other player that he understands what happened, and what his actions mean.

My goal is to avoid this kind of situation in the first place. As a dealer, I try to resolve these things without involving the floor at all. As a dealer or as a player, I want a table free of bad feelings about mistakes and rulings. I don't want it to escalate to "two against one".

If we're living in a black & white binary world, then sure. But I don't live in that world. I think it's possible to be a bit more diligent in ensuring that Player B understands the situation, without fearing that such an agreement can never be 100%, or that he can lie later. At the very least, it's possible to recognize a situation such as in the OP and take steps to prevent it becoming the problem that it did.

Sure he can. He can lose the rest of the bet. He might even lose the entire bet.

Once he's tabled his cards, he's given Player B more information, and changed the dynamic. If he pauses, recognizes the potential problem, and aids to resolve it before tabling his cards, then it's entirely possible there will be no ruling at all. Player B might see that he goofed and say "Oh, oops, okay I call" without even thinking about it. And if he does protest the order of events, we can get a floor to rule on it, and get the chips in the pot before Player B sees that he has 0% chance of getting the chips back.

It's entirely in Player A's interest to make sure that Player B understands the consequences of his actions before Player A tables his cards.

Sure. And other rules, less so. For example, if Player B can make a case that he grossly misunderstood the bet, he may be entitled to a full refund.

My point was and still is that it's better to resolve these things sooner rather than later. Don't advance the hand at all until everybody is in agreement as to what happened and what needs to happen.

That is, again, a rather polarized view of the situation. I'm just trying to help people recognize that they have more power than they think they do, and that they should be more vigilant in protecting their hands.

The more we beat this stuff to death in here, the easier it is to play, deal, and rule out there.

Btw, there was talk in either this thread r a similar one recently about a guy reneging on his bet at Borgata. He got banned from the room, but he was not forced to pay the verbal bet.

Hope that hat is yummy!

He was banned from the room because the floor upheld the verbal bet. They can't hold him down and pull chips from his hands.

A countless number of my opponents wish they could nullify their calls by simply disagreeing they happened.

@pfap:

Apologies in advance for how long this is. I can't control myself and not point out that the 70 wouldn't have been on the table if A were more clear. This is true in almost every instance of a guy who doesn't hear. I don't want to iterate it. It's a loss of 0 no matter how you look at it, when you want that call.

Basically I'm talking about what protects A from his action not being upheld (and why that's paramount) and you are talking about what protects A from a misunderstanding causing a problem (and why that's paramount), so we'll never line up. Can we ever decide which is more important to the non-fish? I don't know. There is also the third issue of: do you hold B to putting chips in? (Which is why the thread was created.) These really are all separate issues that together would probably take tens of thousands of lines to reason out. That said:

I don't know if I agree that I want to go out of my way to make someone understand what they're doing if I want a call I might not get otherwise. (or advocate it for the readers of this thread) Maybe that makes me unethical to some degree, but it's not an angle shot and it's not playing gotcha to turn the table against me.

Barring the red herring of refusal to pay (what have you witnessed more of: this or flopped quads?), the reason I am stressing doing what it takes to get the ruling over doing what it takes to get the understanding is that when someone tries to weasel out I am pretty covered, and the only reason he would try to weasel out is if I were winning, honest mistake or otherwise. So if he really didn't know, my extra clear betting would have gotten the fold anyway. Loss of nothing, gain of nothing. Making a legitimate action without babysitting him can get me a call I wouldn't have gotten. Loss of nothing, possible gain. It seems GTO, for lack of a better term.

Also, headphones guy is not my customer. He is my target. He is bad for the table and is best used as a piñata. There are many types of players who are my customer, and they warrant a bit more than what I'm describing above.

A said All-in, the dealer confirmed All-in. How much clearer do you want it?

We're in agreement; some people are saying he should have been more clear and I say a. it was clear enough and b. for what actual gain/benefit? I just meant in this instance more clear would also mean no call and no profit.

More clear = putting the stack in/not making an all-in wave.

So basically you are saying that what A did in this case was better because it could have resulted in him getting more money than he should have, I.e. a free roll. The way you are explaining it turns what A did into an angle, all your arguments are actually making it worse and making me think, for the first time, that A may actually be a scumbag.