Yeah, the way you quoted ABC made it sound like he doesn't understand why this is collusion.

At least some of us know that by definition, collusion involves a secret agreement between at least two parties. Nothing in OPs post suggested that anything secretive or deceitful happened.

Yes, as with every other casino I've played at, chopping or making deals is allowed by the Casino, and the floor isn't required to approve it.

At this casino it's normally allowed.

My instinct is that the floorman was annoyed at being called over. So he made a passive-aggressive ruling, i.e.: "Now that I've been forced to come to the table even though I had better things to do, I'm going to force you to follow-through with the RIT. This might teach you to not request a RIT until you're totally certain you want it."

I’m fairly certain that the majority of poker rooms in the US doesn’t allow for players to chop except for the very specific situation of SB vs BB preflop. At least based on their official rules. What they do or don’t enforce, especially in higher stakes games is a totally different issue.

Best marriage advice from our priest .. Never use the words all, every, never or any other 'all encompassing' type of words in discussion with your spouse (or really any other person).

Obv the Dealers ultimately set the tone of the table, but I also doubt that 'a lot' of poker rooms allow deals.

HSP has long poisoned us with Sammy Farha's table talk .. on the flip side I think it was a hand between Greenstein and Dwan that has been very memorable to me. Dwan asks to RIT and Barry says no, then when Tom turns his hand over Barry asks Tom if he wants to take $200K back and Tom snaps denies. Of course Tom cracked Barry's AA ..

On a weird side note, I didn't realize how 'close' Barry and Phil Ivey were. But based on the video series that showed up on PokerGo recently it seems that way. Certainly a reverse of fortune as Phil mentions that he was in great awe when he entered Barry's house 'build on poker'. (I think the series is 'old', but PokerGo has just put it out there.) GL

just to be clear this was a dead flip.

Well..

I think made for TV poker in casino settings is one of the main reasons why some people fail to understand why their 1/3 card room game can’t be run like something that’s basically a private game.

I've seen this poker room permit any negotiated deals, as well several other casinos' poker rooms at high enough stakes.

In this instance the floor did not say "You're not allowed to chop" or "You're not allowed to negotiate a deal before showdown." The floor first said "You are obligated to run a board" (Which is false, I've seen otherwise at the casino) and then after the first board, the floor then changed his statement to "You are obligated to run 2 boards"

Regardless, my concern here isn't whether a particular casino has particular house rules.

My concern here is that the floor seems to be making up rules on the fly, and that those made up rules are contrary both to the wishes of every player active in the hand, AND, contrary to running a speedy poker game.

That speedy poker game where they're renegotiating a deal and calling the floor to settle it?

And it's acceptable to bet the third guy out of a pot to chop up his money?

Not a room I want to play in.

exactly this.

lmao@ mentioning a speedy game when two giant pussies already called the floor over to run it twice then want to waste everyone's time arguing with the floor over not wanting to run a second board bc of a 1 percent chance someone scoops because they're playing a game that's too big for them.

OP considering 10/25NL "typical medium stakes game" is my biggest takeaway from this thread. Must be a baller!

And AK v AK is essentially a 'non' Flip .. so why run Boards out in either case since in the long run the chips come out equally?

I'm just being a pain, there are differences and your point is well made. GL

I approve of a floor who thinks this way.

Me too. I also wouldn't allow a chop.

I think there is a substantive difference between two people who have 50% equity in a pot deciding to chop it, and two people deciding to chop it under any other circumstance. However, having already run it once, while agreeing to run it twice, I do not believe the second run can be cancelled even if both parties in the pot agree.

I might be missing something, but why didn't the floor allow them to change their decision on running it twice? Is the agreement to run it twice irreversibly binding?

This thread went pretty deep on exploring those questions.

To me this thread is a good example of why letting players run the game is problematic. You let a few people make up rules because who cares it's their money and nobody minds. After a while people expect it. Then you try to enforce the rules because you feel it's appropriate in that situation and some guy spends months going off on you, saying you have it in for them or were annoyed at having to do your job or you're being unreasonable or unfair. They spin the situation and act persecuted because you "forced" them to do something you agreed to do just minutes prior.

As above, I'm thinking it was a spot where the Floor didn't want to open the door to "Well, this time .." and then hear about it later in other spots and via gossip that would filter through the other shifts and up through other Floors for sure.

As indicated, the R/R require a Floor to be called for RIT, so once the process got started it should probably continue 'as normal' without bias for variance/holdings or Player's changing their minds while waiting for the Floor to get there. (No wolf calling.) GL

the players already slowed the game down and called the floor over for this nonsense. why can't they just stop being so gutless, honor their agreement and deal with losing 1 percent of the time instead of having zero consideration for anyone else at the table.

I think if you both agree to RIT, then it's reasonable to RIT even both changes their minds. Especially when additional formal observation is required.

Not a fan of 'takesie backsies' overriding the house rule because then that opens the door to later arguments regarding a different RIT because the players involved say they cancelled the RIT and its ambiguous what happened. Now we're here, just RIT and move on with our lives.

Different story if the house rule doesn't require RIT to proceed and/or they didn't make the floor march over there to witness this whole scene in the first place.

sure if you're referring to a 50-50 chop but how's that different than a 60/40 where the players agree to split it 60-40 which you obviously can't do

This is a perfect example of not fully understanding why a Player chooses to RIT .. things happen. Any time you're a huge favorite for a 'result' you shouldn't care about RIT one bit .. things happen.

$1M One Drop & WSOP ME .. AA v AA .. there was a loser

My PLO game last night .. 2 Players Flop nut straight .. there was a loser

I heard on a TCH stream that this guy was offering 'best 2 outta 3' (to scoop) to opponents when he was a favorite .. and they were lining up out the door in acceptance. REALLY, these are the people we are playing against right now?

LIVE POKER (still) LIVES LARGE .. GL

Flopped straight with no draws
vs one with straight flush draw and two pair...

You getting it all in on the flop if you're the first guy?