If the guy had said what you quoted above he probably wouldn't have been held to a fold. But what he said was "blah blah blah ... fold". And before the floor got called over he said something like "OMG did I just say Fold? I don't want to fold I have the nuts!!!"

I don't remember the exact wording as it was over 10 years ago but I do remember the guy hung his head and knew he had made an incredibly bad mistake. He didn't argue the ruling either after the floor made his decision.

As much as I think the floors at Foxwoods in cash games were very inconsistent with their rulings around that time, the Tournament Floors were really very consistent (and good).

Was the action headsup on river or what? I'm just having a hard time picturing what actually happened here. Was "fold" just said on its own in isolation?

Someone mumbling in a noisy cardroom on the
other side of the table can be hard to understand.

But check/call/fold/raise are words that will stand out in the noise.

"mumble, mumble mumble, fold" is what we hear.

He a pain in the ass who expects rulings to go his way.
The floor is not gonna give him the slack that a less troublesome player would get.

But that goes back to my point that I've seen infinite people say a version of "I don't think I can fold" and not be held to a fold. Never even seen someone suggest that they should be held to a fold.

If people hear that, it's not a fold.

If all they hear is "mumble, mumble, mumble fold" it might go another way.

I've had players say "Check?" to ask if it's checked to them.
And players check behind and he's held to a check.

Best to be clear with your wording when the action is on you.

And make sure the dealer is listening. If he's getting a fill
or yelling for service, wait till he's back, focused on the game.

Agree for sure there, and also agree it's different if what you say induces action behind, and have seen the "check" thing happen also. That's why I was curious on more details on Mr. Rick's hand, though I get it was a long time ago ha.

Either way, for sure best to just avoid saying those terms at all. I will always say "What's the action?" or "On me?" rather than "Did he check?" or the certainly reckless "Check?"

mod: ok, let's tone it down with all these sarcastic personal attacks, please

I've let them go until now because the poster's history does have some relevance to the context of the answers, but we're edging closer to me pulling the plug on all of it. This is why we can't have nice things.

Thanks.

Based on what Rick is saying, the situation sounds like...

"So then I told the guy 'actually it's just lettuce'!" *realizes action is on him* "Fold." *smiles at a job well done* "WAIT NO. I didn't mean fold, I meant all in!"

I was done posting in this thread for what should be obvious reasons, but I’ll say a few more things given the mod’s post above.

dinesh- You should have made this call several posts ago and deleted the offending content. It’s not right for someone to create an interesting thread on this site and get insulted and character assassinated with unfounded accusations from total strangers in the process. Worse yet, you backed some of them up by saying “my history” was relevant to the discussion.

This is also why this site is losing so many of its contributors, including me. I.e., why we can’t have nice things. In addition to the Omaha strat forum, I am done contributing to this forum. This is a loss to the site on many levels given my history of new and discussion-engendering content, but for me it’s the right move. I’m tired of being bullied here. I will not be a punching bag anymore for a bunch of anonymous keyboard warriors who suffer no consequences.

Please don’t take this as me caring too much about what anyone here thinks about me. But the attacks do take a slight emotional toll that makes posting much less appealing.

It’s pretty paradoxical, you reach a level of success some only dream of and get very little if any respect for it, on a poker strategy site no less. To me that’s a poor reflection of where this community’s priorities lie. We should be suporting each other, not tearing each other down, and looking up to those who have reached a very high level of play. Learning from each other’s occasional goofy mistakes but being understanding. The comments here could have been much more constructive but they took an ugly turn.

I hope my departure here sends a message to the community and mods and makes the site better in the long run. Thanks to everyone who posted well-meaning responses here and in the past.

It was something like this.

If I remember it right he started talking because he had the nuts and was feeling good about it. But then he said something like "I guess I fold". And then was like "did I say that out loud?"

It was incredibly unfortunate and if it had been a cash game and I was HU with him and he showed me the nuts I probably would let him take it back and call.

It was on the river and if I am not mistaken there was another player left to act and then the original bettor. It was a tournament so there was no way he was going to be allowed to call.

I have a hard time believing that you don't understand why your history is relevant to the floor making a ruling and to people on this forum discussing the situation.

Same.

Dumbo, I like your posts and learned from your strategy posts and have tried to help you in your B&M posts without being rude.

But I think you are off here and getting too offended by the criticism coming your way. You know you're usually a "by the rules" player, and you posted here knowing that the floor action was well within the rules. It is just being honest for people to tell you that the floor may have made a different decision for another player with a different history. Floor people have a good deal of latitude in their decisions on edge cases, of which this was one.

Unless some posts were deleted, I have seen nothing that is particularly rude or insulting to you, this is just people telling it the way they see it. You have stated a few times that you were "on the spectrum"; I have read a good amount about autism/Asperger's syndrome and would have figured that out on my own. You seem like someone who is very good at poker, but not as good at some of the interactions that happen at a poker table. I feel for you, because I am the same way (to a lesser extent). But I hope you will realize that your judgement about such things is not that great, and I think the same goes for this thread - no one is treating you as a punching bag, and are taking things far too harshly. I hope you will reconsider and stay with the forum.

Yeah.
He was expecting everyone to agree that he had been treated unfairly.
When everyone pointed out that he was the problem he got offended... =(

Any competent floor *must* take history into account.

I disagree. Every situation should be dealt with in a fair manner. If someone's a repeat offender who's always giving them problems, they have the right to ban them, but they shouldn't give a ruling "based on hero's history" such as the original supervisor who tried to hold the OP to an all-in bet in a pot limit game. That was going alil too far imho.

I think history is the only way you GET fair rulings. It's not about "repeat offenders." It's about taking into account the perceptions of the players involved.

No sane floor would treat a big mixed game the same as a 1/2 NL table.

You're free to feel however you like of course, but many rulebooks in cardrooms have passages about taking a player's history into account to aid floor decisions.

Yeah, I think the disconnect is taking history means you can look at that stuff to see if something is a legit accident, an angle, whatever. But some people are reading it to mean decide "eh this guy is kind of a dick, ruling against him."

Right. If a player has a history of being an absolute stickler to the rules, then any player around him could reasonably expect that to be the standard of interpreting his own actions.

It's not about being biased. It's about reasonable expectations.

Part of treating everyone the same is taking history into account. People get warnings, sometimes multiple warnings before they are penalized. It would be unfair to someone to be treated the same as someone who has gotten multiple warnings when considering the same situation. Not saying he was warned for something like this, but in general he is not without a blank slate, as anyone that frequents a cardroom isn’t.

The rules of the game are black and white. You either broke a rule or you didn't. And if you didn't, a supervisor shouldn't award the pot to DT's opponent only because "they have history". I get that, if there's a lot of history they always have the option to ban the player, not keep him there and if a ruling comes up that would normally be awarded to him it gets awarded to his opponent.

I don't know where you're playing poker, but it must not be in any of the 30 or so rooms where I have played.

Then there's rule #1.

Floor people are to consider fairness & the best interest of the game when making decisions.
Unusual Circumstances can occasionally dictate that decisions
in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules.

So the guy who's obviously never played in a cardroom makes
a joke all in comment and mucks... might no be held to a bet.

But the guy who plays in the room daily and is a stickler
for enforcing the rules... probably not getting away with it.

Rule #1 is the best interest of the game. That's basically the opposite of black and white.