[ ] I ignored your question
[?] Troll

But if you want a more specific description of the floormen then here it is based on my memory of the event:


I was two to the right of 42 Asian Guy and had folded pre, and considering my follow-up post about the incident and my longtime, positive participation in this community I'm offended you would make this accusation.

I included the questions about what hands would be strong enough to call with because, in a vacuum, it's an interesting game theory situation. But I later admitted they made me sound callous.

I'll try to respond to a few other posts ITT, but please keep in mind that I'm only human. Obv I didn't jot down every detail of the incident and while everything I say is correct to the best of my knowledge, there may be details that I have jumbled. Remember, I'd folded pre and was probably thinking about whether or not I should order another bottled water.

Yes, a total of four players had live hands going to the river. Vietnamese(?) 42 Guy was then first to act with three players yet to act behind him: Filipino(?) J9 Guy, Caucasian Donator Guy, and Caucasian B&M-Reg Woman.

That woman (Player 4) was, as I recall, the instigator. She was the most vocal and argumentative about his "all-in". I don't remember which player "chimed in", but I don't think it was one of the other active players. I think J9 guy and The Donator were pretty quiet.

I should have been clearer. If you say fold and toss your cards face-up, you've folded because the verbal declaration supersedes the physical one (as I understand it). But the mere act of flipping them up does not kill the hand, even if you flip them up so that they're touching or even on top of the muck-pile.

It's not like the entire Pavilion came to a screeching halt. There were probably 8 people gathered or watching on the rail, and most were asking each other "What just happened? What'd I miss?" Disputes happen all the time at the tables. People gather, then they go on their merry way.

I used a lot of colorful phrases in my OP ("howled into his phone", "chaos ensued", "cursed the Poker Gods") but keep in mind I'm a storyteller; it's what I do. The facts of the matter are correct to the best of my knowledge, but it wasn't a Michael Bay film.

So, The Asian guy gets a free pass on his "corny joke" which in fairness then allows every player at the table to say "all-in" when he really means fold....yeah this is the type of table I'd like at play at.....

He should get a warning. He shouldn't be forced to shove 20x pots after folding the nut low face up...

LOL there is a solution you're ignoring, which is to penalize the asian guy in a way that doesn't involve stacking him...

I don't understand why people jokingly say things like "all in" in a way that there is any possibility of this type of thing happening. Just check or fold like a normal person. Or make some other joking comment. Not "all in"

I understand the contention that what the 4-2 guy did was wrong, bad etiquette, deserving of a warning or a penalty. But anyone who thinks the ruling was correct and that he should be forced to put the money in --

Stop. You are the cancer that is killing poker. Please go learn how to count cards or handicap and let decent human beings play the game in peace.

They make the "joke" because they have yet to learn that it might cost them their stack..

I once made the joke. I hit a full house on the river in a friendly little cash game. Oh yeah.. we were laughing and drinking.. 3-5 nl game with only four of us. Nobody really knew anyone else..

The pot was tiny. I says "All in!" The world stopped. I realized I did not have anything close to the nuts. I can feel the blood rush to my face. We are all fairly deep like $2K or so.

Thankfully they folded.. slowly.. one by one.

There is nothing "magical" about it. I lived in Louisville for about 5 years, and pllayed regularly at what was Caesars (now the Horseshoe) in Southern IN. Roughly 10 years ago I tabled a hand with some enthusiasm that was a winner, and in my excitement I slapped down the cards in such a way that one of them sailed across the table and into the muck. Face up...retrievable.

The dealer ruled my hand dead, I had a seizure, the floor guy came over, backed up the dealer, and the pot got pushed to the other guy. I have no idea if they were both maroons, or if that was the house rule at that time, or what, but it happened exactly that way.

Also, for the guy who mentioned killing your hand by exposing it...I'm pretty sure this is the house rule at Bellagio, incredulous "where do people get these insane ideas" questions notwithstanding.

Nice of you to oversimplify the situation to a ******ed degree. Let's completely ignore the exposed hand thrown face-up willingly, the hand being the absolute nut low, and then going all-in for over 20x the pot. It's absolutely inconceivable that anyone could see any difference between that and someone saying all-in without exposing his hand.

Don't bother dog, there isn't any difference, it's the exact same thing and no one could see it any other way.

Reading some replies in this thread, it's no longer surprising how often I read about some poker player scamming others.

Something somewhat similar happened at the Red Rock in Vegas. At showdown, I misread my hand, announced "straight" and tabled my hand. The other (very drunk) player angrily folded a pair into the muck. Then we noticed that I didn't have the straight. The pot was awarded to me, but the drunk guy howled and the table screamed in protest. I slid the chips his way and everything was gold, other than the table picking on me the rest of the evening. (The drunk guy eventually went busto and barely stayed upright leaving the table.)

The difference is that it was your action when you said all in. This Asian guy had already clearly mucked his hand when he said all in. You mentioned that he made 3 mistakes which cost him $5k, but you are wrong. Only the part where he said "all in" cost him the money, and since the action was no longer on him since he had mucked his hand, regardless of the stupid way he mucked it, his clear intention was to fold his hand. How you can even attempt to dispute that throwing the nut low face up towards the muck is not a fold is beyond me.

That being said, based on what John has just said about the action of the hand, I would not have given the guy his money back if I were the player with J9. This is similar to the discussion awhile back about playing in a HU tourney and your opponent disconnects. Your only real obligation imo is to act in the way you believe the other player would act if the roles were reversed. Since we have no reason to believe the Asian player would return our money if we were the ones forced all in by a silly mistake, I don't believe we have the moral obligation to return the money to him. That being said, I would have argued with the floor when they arrived that their ruling was idiotic. Once the ruling is made and final however, that's poker.

to me this just says a lot about the peopel in the hand

sure he won the pot. but as a human being, hes a disgrace. Whether its 'in the rules' or not, the guy was clearly joking and theyve pretty much robbed him.

This is why if i was mega rich i wouldnt play poker - why would i want to donate to people like this?

even the other 2 considered calling. In fact i would even consider court action against the Rio for not clearly stating the rules. Its amazing that you could lose 7k in the click of the fingers just by saying the wrong thing... Or do this 82 or whatever people call it just pick the chips up and leave

Also which other player said his hand is live needs a smack in the teeth. I get the impression someone who wasnt even in the pot chimed in

*grunching*

so if I declare fold and throw my hand in the muck face-up, it is still live and I have actually just checked?

sure hope not, the rule sounds idiotic, obv barfed at the ruling

well, even if I won't declare, should def be considered a fold

This rambling and nonsensical reply reminds me of David Koresh head of the Branch Davidians. if your under 35 google it....

with that said. I refuse to see the other side of "why hold me responsible for my actions or words argument". next time your in the security line at the airport yell out "Bomb" and then see how far your excuse of "Hey, it was a corny joke" gets you..

If i'm the floor I give asian guy a warning and instruct the dealer to deal him out for [x] hands for deliberately exposing cards with action pending, and that if he repeats his verbal actions I will rule against him next time he jokingly announces himself all in.

I call the woman an angle-shooter, tell her I don't appreciate angles in my cardroom and if she tries to angle shoot again, she'll be penalised

and obviously the asian guys hand is ruled a muck and action is on J9 guy, hand continues.

Spirit of the game, it's in the rules. Angle shooters and rules nits are a cancer on the game and need to be ruled against in every option. Nothing stops a casual player from playing poker like being angle shot for his stack.

I've been angle shot once for stacks and the floor ruled for villain because he was a regular (villain hid his cards on the river by covering them with his hands despite having to show first, I waited, dealer looked at me, I showed my hand then mucked and villain then brought his cards out (air) and got the sidepot (third guy who had me beat was all in for main pot). Needless to say I was not impressed with that casino (Treasury in Brisbane Australia). Bad floor staff can kill poker rooms.

So, I can throw my hand faceup, look at reaction, then call my action at the rio?

lol give it a rest. You act like this thread is littered with fifteen-year-olds screaming that no one should be held accountable for their actions. He can be penalized by the floor, which is a pretty reasonable way of holding him accountable for his actions. It's not like he was doing anything mean-spirited or was angling -- he doesn't deserve to be crucified for what was a newb mistake.

and lol at the bomb analogy. Use your brain.

So you believe that someone who is in a bank and says : "I have a gun in my hand." when he doesn't have a gun in his hand, deserves the same sentence as someone who says the same thing but actually has a gun in his hand?

Because you clearly think that someone who says all-in after he mucked his cards deserves the same "penalty" as someone who says all-in with cards in his hands.

He lost $5K for one reason and one reason only: The ruling went against him.
Why did that happen?
My guess is partly because he committed multiple, deliberate dumb actions.

Folded out of turn? well, no big deal.

Folded out of turn, face up with play pending? Well, I guess I can give him a break for being ignorant

Folded out of turn, face up, with action pending and declared he is all-in? Jeeze... someone give ME a break.

lol you are the absolute worst. please log out and lose your password

YES!!!

this...

u've got to be a complete POS douche to take advantage of someone's mistake that was clearly intended as a joke. I hope the scumbag lost everything that night.

Probably the worst ruling ever.

here's another thing... someone mentioned game theory...

Players are #1, 2, 3, and 4.
Player #1 is the Asian all-in.

The floor comes over. He sees only one hand face up.
He does not know that is the worst hand (nobody knows). Sure it looks like the "nut low", but can it still win the pot?

Possible scenario:
Player 2 doesn't want to move in because he can get called by 3 or 4, or both players, and lose his stack. So, player 2 folds.
Player 3 feels the same way about player 4, and player 3 folds.

Player 4 can either fold, or call.
Whatayaknow! Player 4 has nothin but air! Holding 5-2, he knows he is also playing the board! It doesn't matter if he calls or folds. If he calls, the pot will be split, Player 1 gets his money back. If he folds, player 1 wins the pot.


So, how could the floor make the assumption that the scenario above is absolutely impossible? How can he be sure Player 1 will lose the hand? He can't be certain.
There is no reason to assume Player 1 must lose this hand. He could win it.
---------
We know the outcome, and our view is not anywhere near the same as the view of the floor and the players at the time the ruling was made.

Dunno if we're in a case to criticise the ruling, yeah it sucks but at the end of the day they had to throw the book at him or else they will have a house full of complaining little ****bags harping on about how nobody should receive special treatment.

Terrible dealer though.