When they comment on my nittery, I say I'm waiting for suited aces or when I fold OTB to limps and the flop is J-high, I complain about folding Jacks.

Yeah, those guys are awful, also they are awful at poker, which is why they think the game is bad. It's actually just fine, except if you suck.

I have two huge peeves. Okay three.

No 3. Waiting for the other player to expose their cards when it's not their turn.

This should get an immediate one round penalty. Maybe a warning if they didn't realize it was their turn to show first. F

Frankly it's just as irritating in tournament during an all in when the second to show refuses to show until the first person does. In that specific situation they should both get a one round penalty.

No 2. Holding your cards behind your hands.

This should a warning, then a penalty if it continues. People who put their cards flush against their chips and close their hands in front of the cards are effectively angle shooting. Several times I've missed players in a multiway pot due to this behavior.

Okay, fine, due to my stupidity. It's still angle shooting.

Keep your hands in front of you, in plain site.

No 1. Putting high value chips on the bottom of your stack.

People who do this should get an automatic one round penalty. There is no excuse for knowing the rules of poker and the strategies of poker and ignoring the rule that dictates high value chips are placed in front and on top.

All 3 of those are caused by ignorance. This is how they do it in their home games and nobody gives a **** because they are all terrible. Except if you're Alec Torelli, then you must hide your big chips.

When people use "dominated" incorrectly. I just heard it at my table. No, Q7 does not have 65 dominated.

This happens a lot. A hell of a lot.

Other people.

People who believe that one round penalties are given out in cash games and even would be a penalty were they.

Dominated-anytime one players hand is significantly better than another players hand

Set-any three of a kind using any combination of board cards and hole card

3 bet-to raise to 3x of the current call value

Drawing dead-drawing to a small number of outs

also raising - betting
reraising - raising

The definition of dominated is if one player's hand beats another hand which has 3 outs or less to improve.

AQ v AJ for example is a classic dominated hand. I believe the term came about strategy for limit holdem where in a tough game hands like KJ are crap because it is so commonly dominated.

I don't think you got his post.

Thanks for the laugh. I enjoyed your post.

What is even funnier is that he only corrected one of the three

The last thing poker needs is more good-looking, flirtatious women at the table. That would be the final nail in the coffin for sure.

Not what I said at all, but whatever.

I'm all for a more equal gender distribution. That would obviously be good for the game, and it would decrease the probability of men behaving in patronizing and unfair ways towards individual women. Also I'm pretty sure creepy old guys hitting on young women doesn't help bring them to the table.

The woman in question actually left after about an hour, complaining about putting up with smelly men, two guys who'd been arguing for about 15 minutes, and "too much testosterone".

Ah OK, fair enough. Sorry for the sarcasm then and that does sound like a valid pet peeve after all.

Peace and rungood.

As a woman those are some of my peeves:

1) guys who don't practice basic hygiene then expect to come to a public place and sit within inches of other people for hours. One actually had the audacity to spread his legs and start wagging them back and forth while holding open the legs of his shorts so that he could air out his "junk". WTF wants to smell dirty dangly bits at a table? I told him to stop and go buy some Gold Bond powder.

2) guys who apparently are trying to digest roadkill and fart fumes that would exterminate alien races. Repeatedly.

3) guys who play like betting size will somehow improve the size of their "manhood". I almost yelled once "whip them out, measure them, make the real determinations and we can get over this nonsense and back to playing poker instead of mine is bigger than yours".

4) guys in low stakes cash games who build a single towering stack of the lowest denomination chips in front of them -- with two aligned chips as the "base" for their "tower". You aren't fooling anyone.

See, and here I was believing people who play cash games are more tolerant and easy going.

My mistake.

That's actually pretty good for the game. These guys cannot be bluffed by certain individuals and are total calling stations. They can't stand the thought of someone like me, let alone a woman, being able to show a bluff. To be fair I would show them at any occasion possible because they think it makes them look stupid or something like that and they will make even bigger mistakes.

Just put them in their place by playing well and make them look stupid that way. I have played with the most childish mafia guys in a casino who went from dick swinging and chip throwing (I kid you not) nonsense to quite respectful, which was kind of dangerous looking back.

What??? That's the core nature of poker; observing a flaw in your opponents' play and taking financial advantage of that flaw. No different than value-betting the calling station or c-betting the fit-or-fold nit.

You want a game that's "fair"? Play chess. Poker is by nature unfair, it's predatory. Don't fault female players for feasting on their prey.

Also according to that logic men couldn't use table talk to get an advantage over their opponent. It's the same as complaining that hot waitresses use their body to get more tips when people do that voluntarily. Is it unfair, yeah. The universe isn't fair, so what.

Chess wouldn't be fair either, if men deliberately let the girls win.

I don't fault female players for taking advantage of sad lonely men who let them off the hook easy. It just annoys me that I'm unable to achieve this same advantage. It's a pet peeve thread.

Your chess analogy doesn't compute. Some men go easy on women in chess for exactly the same reasons they do in poker.

EDIT: What happened to my original post? Pretty sure I didn't violate any rules...but it's gone.

How is this any different than the early 20s hoodie/sunglass/earbud wearing kid who consistently gets three streets of value from 2nd and 3rd pair hands because people insist on calling him down lite because he "looks like he's always bluffing"? Or for that matter the 70 year old OMC that has more fold equity than he has blood pressure pills?

People play differently against all types because of their outward appearances, and as poker players we're supposed to be cognizant of this and exploit it for profit. People playing soft against an attractive women is really no different than someone playing different against any other specific person based on their looks.

I'm 61 and generally very conservative. I don't curse, drink alcohol or abuse people at the table. I also don't play a lot of hands compared to some people. I always wear a dress shirt and pants when I go to play poker. To most of the players, my picture should be in a book where is says Tight Old White Guy. The clothes and shining my shoes go ever further to reinforce my already conservative/tight image.

What the table profilers don't know is that I play a lot, study 10 hours a week, and I play a LOT of speculative hands, especially suited aces and suited connectors in different situations. Norman Chad would say that I have suitedconnectoritis. I'm also not afraid to go all in and risk my tournament life, because I'm always playing to be in the top three--they don't expect that from me either.

It's far different. None of those other examples are deliberately going easy on their opponents or basically telling them what they have.