The sort of idiots who didn't ome with a plan to cheat, but but did so spontaneously. I have seen people openly admit to cheating because they just haven't thought it through ahead of time.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

In post 35 Palimax says, "I've got cut-and-dry historical information that details in no uncertain terms that players show hands both as a measure against collusion and because all players are entitled to showdown information. "

However, the reason he usually mentions is not really a reason but simply that that is the way it's always been done. I accept that that's true but I think it should be otherwise and that you should only have to show if you want to claim the pot.

Generally, any rule that depends on a player request is a lousy rule imo. Where I play, if a player needlessly and on purpose shows one card, anyone at the table can request to see both and the dealer will open. This rule, they say, is to prevent needling(because they want to maintain a friendly atmosphere) but if a player requests to see both cards he will earn animosity from the flasher(and friendliness is lost) so the dealer should automatically open both cards without a request or they may as well eliminate the rule.

If someone requests to see my losing hand on the river I hate it because everyone can see how thin I'm calling and get a bearing on my play. This forces me to reciprocate and ask to see other's hands or give up an edge in the information department. Imo the rule should be largely eliminated or universally enforced by the dealer without request. I'm one of those people who thinks the rule should only be enforced to prevent collusion and the pit should have to be called. If the pit must be called people stop requesting to see losing hands unless they have reason to suspect collusion. I used to play at a casino where they changed the rule as above and people simply stopped requesting to see both hands.

I notice some new faces in LCP but

Look, this is my opinion and not written rule anywhere, but we have the who shows first rule. That is all we need. If you're first to show then you show or muck. If you muck, then no one should need to see your cards. This continues until there is a winner. It really should be that simple. IWTSTH should not be allowed at all.

I didn't want to start a new thread and this seems to be the only low content thread, so just a quick question. Player A gets mistakenly awarded a pot that is too large (everyone knows it's wrong right away) and then player A racks up and leaves. Can the floor do anything here? After looking at the tape to see how much player B got screwed out of, is the house liable for that money or is player B SOL?

If it is before the next hand starts, then the floor can "demand" A return the money.

In most jurisdictions, they will not get security involved or physically take the chips from him, but they may ban him (if they know who he is), instruct the cage not to change his chips, etc.

Typically, the person who was supposed to win can only call the police, file a report, and hope they treat it as a theft worth "investigating".* If not, civil action. The casino may or may not be helpful in assisting with surveillance footage without subpoening them.

House is never liable. Except for small amounts, they will almost never offer anything, except maybe some comps.

*Or they can follow the guy out to his car, but that opens up a different set of legal issues.

So since everyone knew right away, did player A just say screw you guys after he was told of the error and then rack up and leave? Was the floor called as he was racking up and got there before he left? Or did somehow all this happened before anyone said anything? And why was the pot too large and by how much? Did the dealer miscalculate an all in or something?

If everyone knew right away why did they not speak up until after B had the pot?

Yea, that's what I assumed

Dealer mixed together the side pot and main pot and pushed it all to the guy who was only supposed to win the main. It was a 1/2 game, player A only had $20 left, 4 people in the hand, main pot was $80 and the side pot was a little over $100, and now he's getting shipped a $180 pot.

The guy was a drunk ******* and was basically saying that since the pot was pushed to him, it was his to keep, f you guys, i'm not giving it back, it's not my fault the dealer screwed up, etc. Everyone at the table is protesting, the game stops, he gets even more angry and decides to pick up and leave. He's also the biggest guy at the table and appears to be ready to throw down.

Like half the table said wait, wait!, wait!! and she pushed it anyway. Just a massive cluster****.

what are the details of the way this happened? It makes a big difference as to what can or could be done.

It sounds like there was an all-in and someone had change due, but it went to the winner.

Did they notice this and tell the winner, but he racked up and left anyway? In this case, he should be banned.

Did they notice right after he left? In this case, floor should go to the cage and bring him back.

Did they not say anything to him, and he was nowhere to be found? I don't see how he cold be held accountable, if he didn't know there was extra money in the pot.

Edit: yeah, ban him for sure. The casino is going to say they're not liable, just like if you go on a break and someone steals your money.

Since this player was all-in it would be pretty easy to reconstruct the pot and get things set straight. Sounds like it was before the next hand so all measures are still in play for Dealer and Floor to correct the spot.

It can become more complicated if the player that the pot was pushed started to intermingle the chips, but it would still come down to room rules as to when the next hand officially starts.

This very well could be a case of theft within an Indian casino, or really any casino. It's just a matter of timing to get the Floor and Security to the table or cage before the guy gets away. GL

The chips were intermingled, but I'm pretty sure 99% of players would have been fine with the hand being reconstructed, taking their quadruple up ($80), making sure the other guy got his sidepot and moved on to the next hand. But not this guy.

This was in Cambodia, so nothing will ever happen to him unfortunately, but I was mostly curious to see what would normally happen at decently run casino.

Since these drinks are given away free and it takes half an hour for the alcohol to fully hit, surely one drink a couple orbits before you leave would be fine right? Unless you're a featherweight.

Seems pretty -ev to not be getting as many free drinks as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you want the alcohol to hit you just as you're driving home?

Uber/Lyft

It's -EV to be such a nit about drinking.

how does typical live game in major cities
looks like it's 6max of more likely full ring?

There are no 6-max live games anywhere; a few places have tried them in the past, but they didn't work well. Most live players hate playing short. All games are 9 or 10 max.

In a well-run US casino, floor would have offered the guy the choice of yielding the reconstructed side pot or being banned.

6 max live would be the dream. More hands per hour and better chances of getting heads up in position vs fish.

You presume that 'the fish' would even be willing to play 6-max. You can rarely get them to play short-handed even if it means getting a table to open and clear a waiting list...

That's why he said the "dream" instead of the "reality."

I would pay whatever the rake difference would be to play 6max live.

6 max would generate more rake. Casinos would love 6 max, but players won't play it.