Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here I have no idea what the correct ruling is here

10-24-2013 , 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psandman
You are skipping something here. Player 2 is telling the truth .... he thought there was a check ... does not end the inquiry. What if he thought there was a check ..... BUT WOULD HAVE CALLED A BET IF IT HAD BEEN MADE. You are now letting Player 1 off the hook because he throws away his hand before Player 2 says call. If Player 1 doesn't throw away his hand Player 2 will eventually have to act ..... and his action might be a call .....might be a fold ... we just don;t know ..... but you are taking away that option.




I do not consider exposing one's hand an angle or an inducement to player 1 to muck. That scenario makes zero sense to me. You might as well say the player ordered a diet coke from the cocktail waitress as an effort to get player 1 to muck.

You seem to think that I am concerned that player 2 is the player not telling the truth. I think it is player 1 who is more problematic. Why did he throw away his cards? Maybe because he saw he was beat ? Now you want him to get to save his last bet?
Also it is worth noting that now that player 2 is aware of the bet, he can go ahead and call.
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-24-2013 , 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist
Player 2 claims he thought it was checked. This claim is consistent with his actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psandman
While his action may be consistent with what he says. It is also consistent with a player taking a shot. I do not know which it was ......
Quote:
Originally Posted by psandman
You seem to think that I am concerned that player 2 is the player not telling the truth. I think it is player 1 who is more problematic.
If you say so.
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-24-2013 , 05:17 PM
I wanted to crush Player 1 for muttering his bet, thinking it was clear that his opponent AND the dealer took his muttering as a check.

Now I want to crush Player 2 for blaming the dealer for not doing what Player 2 was supposed to do.

So let's kill both hands, and chop the pot among all other players at the table, whether they put any money in there or not.
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-24-2013 , 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist
I can't imagine how you can even consider giving him the $50. Even if the $50 bet existed, which is in question, he made no indication of calling it, verbally or physically. Tabling your hand does not mean "Call."
Because Player A bet, then mucked his cards. Is that really that hard to understand?

Terrible ruling. LOL floor.
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-24-2013 , 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirRawrsALot
Because Player A bet, then mucked his cards. Is that really that hard to understand?

Terrible ruling. LOL floor.
I guess it is hard to understand, if you don't actually read the OP. There was no Player A mentioned, but whether or not Player 1 bet is in question. Player 1 is the only one at the table saying that he bet, he doesn't make this claim until the pot was being pushed to Player 2, and nobody else has said that they heard his bet.
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-24-2013 , 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_jmac
...
PLAYER 1 says "$50" but does not put any chips forward.
Quote:
2. Agree. It was 2 am, and table was pretty roudy/loud. Player 1 was in seat 8 and by buddy was in in seat 3 so I'm not shocked he mis-heard what player 1 said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist
I guess it is hard to understand, if you don't actually read the OP. There was no Player A mentioned, but whether or not Player 1 bet is in question. Player 1 is the only one at the table saying that he bet, he doesn't make this claim until the pot was being pushed to Player 2, and nobody else has said that they heard his bet.
OP seems to state that Player 1 really did say "$50" (which could be construed as either a statement of a bet amount OR just a repeat of what his opponent said)
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-24-2013 , 08:14 PM
It seems to come down to who mucked/folded their cards first.

Scenario 1: Player 2 mucked/folded first and then Player 1 mucked/folded; Money goes to Player 1
If exposing your cards in this situation automatically means they are folded then Player 2 folded his cards and Player 1 mucked his cards after that. Money goes to Player 1.

Scenario 2: Player 1 mucked/folded his cards, Player 2 did not muck/fold his cards; Money goes to Player 2
If exposing your cards in this situation does not automatically mean they are folded then Player 2 showed his cards but did not act, Player 1 saw the cards and mucked his. Money goes to Player 2.

Caveat
The other possibility is if this card room has a muck line. I've heard of this but I've never seen the rule in play. But if the card room has a muck line and Player 2 opened his cards and they crossed the muck line then Player 2 mucked his cards followed by Player 1. Money goes to Player 1.

Pet Peeve
Player 1's cards are irretrievable. The above scenarios can still play out but his cards are irretrievable. Period!
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-25-2013 , 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist
I guess it is hard to understand, if you don't actually read the OP. There was no Player A mentioned, but whether or not Player 1 bet is in question. Player 1 is the only one at the table saying that he bet, he doesn't make this claim until the pot was being pushed to Player 2, and nobody else has said that they heard his bet.
Learn how to write an OP then.

Your OP says "Player 1 says $50". Now you say that nobody heard the bet. Maybe that's something that should be mentioned in OP. Not days later.
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-25-2013 , 01:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirRawrsALot
Learn how to write an OP then.

Your OP says "Player 1 says $50". Now you say that nobody heard the bet. Maybe that's something that should be mentioned in OP. Not days later.
Don't know why I thought you were OP, my bad.
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-25-2013 , 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist
I guess it is hard to understand, if you don't actually read the OP. There was no Player A mentioned, but whether or not Player 1 bet is in question. Player 1 is the only one at the table saying that he bet, he doesn't make this claim until the pot was being pushed to Player 2, and nobody else has said that they heard his bet.
I have to echo everyone else by asking, where are you getting this idea?

This is the second time in just a few days that you've accused a forum member of either not reading or not understanding something when you've been the one who looks lost.
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-25-2013 , 08:31 AM
Do we know where Player B tabled his cards? Did he throw them forward into the board? Throwing your cards forward when facing a bet is often interpreted as a muck. So that's one reason why the pot may have been awarded to the other player.

It's a very simple concept, people. YOUR CARDS ARE YOUR RECEIPT FOR THE POT. DO NOT RELEASE THEM UNTIL YOU HAVE THE POT.
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote
10-25-2013 , 06:36 PM
Both players deserved to lose the pot, and it would be nice if the dealer could be bothered to show up for work.
I have no idea what the correct ruling is here Quote

      
m