To Mike Caro
ace...@ballistic.com
As a lurker to the group for about a year, I have learned a great deal
from many of the posters (and characters!) in rgp. However, I have to
come out of my lurker mode to thank Mike Caro for the most
informative, sensible post I have seen in this group. He has stuck
his professional neck out a MILE with the things he said in his post
on cheating. Frankly, until the issues he raised are dealt with
effectively, all the other posts on here about strategy and such are
the equivalent rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Thanks Mike,
for displaying a very high level of courage and integrity....even in
the face of being directly challenged by Doyle Brunson. You stuck to
your guns, and rightfully so, IMHO.
Jim Scott
Steve Brecher
ace...@ballistic.com wrote about Mike Caro's recent post on cheating:
> [...] Frankly, until the issues he raised are dealt with
> effectively, all the other posts on here about strategy and such are
> the equivalent rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. [...]
I believe that both the explicit statement and the implication are incorrect.
--Collusion is enough of a problem that many players should be concerned
about it; but not so much of a problem that it should deter them from
playing, and hence questions of strategy and other normal playing issues
are not futile.
--Collusion will *always* be enough of a problem that many players should
be cocerned about it: the implication that partnerships can somehow be
"dealt with effectively," after which we can all get on with worry-free
poker, is unwarranted.
The higher the stakes and the larger the number of unknown players in your
game, the more important it is that you be alert to the possibilities of
collusion.
Most players play for relatively low stakes.
And -- I can't prove this but it seems to me the case -- most players know
most of the people they play with at least in the sense of having played
with them many times before. I think this is true even of those who play
in public card rooms.
But if you are in a risky situation -- higher stakes, unknown players --
there is no substitute for vigilance and never will be.
So, to the extent that you choose to expose yourself to the risk of
collusive cheating it behooves you to think about the possible techniques
that such cheaters might use, and be on the lookout for them. Anyone who
has a justifiable hope of beating a higher stakes game should have enough
savvy to figure out what the techniques might be. But here are a few
things -- far from an exhaustive list -- that might pique your interest:
--players who arrive and/or depart at around the same time;
--players who make seemingly illogical folds;
--players who are looking at each other at times when most players are
naturally looking elsewhere such as at hole cards or the board (this
phenomenon is most easily observed from the rail while taking a break from
playing).
[I, and no doubt others, would be grateful to those more knowledgeable
than I who can add to this list.]
Even in cases where you encounter collusion, the most you can hope to
gather is circumstantial evidence that raises your suspicion to the action
point; conclusive proof is nearly impossible to achieve. But the
appropriate action is highly contextual. Without proof, confrontation may
be unwise. In some cases, just leaving the game is the most that can
prudently be done. Attitudes can vary widely.
For example: during the World Series of Poker I was playing pot limit
hold 'em in a side game at Binion's. Also in the game was a casual poker
friend whom I had met a couple of weeks earlier at Binion's. We had
talked together and shared a couple of meals. During this game, I became
involved in a large heads-up pot (alas, my opponent had a made hand and I
failed to hit my draw). At the showdown, I conceded defeat by discarding
my hand face down. A player not involved in the showndown but who had
seen the flop, whom I knew to be primarily a limit player and whom I had
not previously seen play big-bet poker, asked the dealer to expose my hand
and the dealer (properly) complied. At this, my friend (also not involved
in the pot) went ballistic, and vigorously berated the player who had made
the request. My friend's attitude was that asking to see my hand was
tantamount to accusing me of collusion; that such an accusation was
boorish; and that the honorable thing to do when one suspected impropriety
was to silently leave the game. The reply of the requester, that he
merely wanted to see how I played and had the right to do so, was
contemptuously dismissed by my friend.
(I don't agree that leaving the game is always the sole proper response
when collusion is suspected. I am just reporting this incident as an
example of a certain viewpoint you may encounter.)
As Doyle Brunson wrote, poker is a game of people. This is true beyond
the confines of the tactical consideration of hands and bets. I believe
that the risks of being cheated are inevitable but manageable. And I
agree that we should be grateful for all the help we can get from
experienced people in the industry such as Mike Caro, and that we take
every opportunity to encourage card room management to protect their --
our -- games.
(I gave copies of Mike's post to the managers of the two rooms I frequent
in Reno. Last week, I had given them copies of information about the
hold-out artist who was caught at the Mirage. Last night in the no limit
game at the Reno Hilton, I observed some dealers counting down the stub
who'd never done it before.)
--
st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
Robert Copps
In article <steve-03129...@brecher.reno.nv.us>,
st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher) writes:
>
>
> ...But here are a few things -- far from an exhaustive list -- that might
> pique your interest:
>
> --players who arrive and/or depart at around the same time;
>
> --players who make seemingly illogical folds;
>
> --players who are looking at each other at times when most players are
> naturally looking elsewhere such as at hole cards or the board (this
> phenomenon is most easily observed from the rail while taking a break
> from
> playing).
>
>
Terrific post, Steve. I can toss out a couple of other points.
-- watch players who flash their cards to you when they fold. If you don't
reciprocate cheaters will change seats until they find someone who does.
-- players who make the same remarks when they act before the flop. Certain
key words might be a description of their hand for a confederate's
knowledge.
-- two players who seem to get into raising wars with each other pre-flop.
They may make it look like some kind of friendly rivalry, but the fact is
that if two players with one BR go to town with any two hands > group 5
they have a very high +EV in a loose game. I know a few players from here
(Vancouver) who have made a great deal of money in LV and LA using this
technique, but the first time I saw it was with a couple of rounders in a
small game here.
-- a lot of young players who have played in home games think they can fool
pros by signalling with hand gestures. Naturally, they reinvent the wheel,
then play too many hands. Sharper players will decipher their signals and
try to keep them in the game.
--Bob (Whoops, I mean, "That's all for now --Bob".
tha...@nmia.com
This is a situation where I permitted "cheating" to occur that to my
grief cost me half a pot. I was playing hold'em years ago in a very
easy game. A novice player without much experience was in this game. A
rounder who apparently knew this novice player took an interest in the
game and stood behind the novice player. The rounder started telling
the novice player what to do during the play of the hand. I knew this
was wrong but both these guys were so bad I didn't feel like I had a lot
to worry about and I thought that the rounder would give the novice bad
advice. The rounder and the novice were cheating in the strict sense of
the word. In reality I believe that the rounder knew better but just
got carried away with himself. This must have gone on for a half hour
and I didn't say a word nor did any of the other players. I got
involved in a pot with the novice player. I had top pair on the flop
and bet. The novice player in the big blind was in the process of
folding his hand and the rounder told him to call. To shorten this a
little, runner-runner came on the turn and river completing a straight
on the board when all the cards were out and the rounder and I were the
only players left. We split the pot and I was livid. I went over to
the floor man and told him about the rounder and the floor man was
gracious and kicked the rounder out of the card room. On his way out
the rounder apologized to me but I was in no mood to hear it. I thought
about the incident later and I realized that I had brought the situation
on myself and even more than that I was contributing to the "cheating."
I realized my mistakes which were:
1) I should have told the rounder and the novice immediately that their
behavior was cheating and told them to desist.
2) If I wasn't satisfied I should have gone immediately to the floor
man.
3) Since I didn't say anything I condoned and contributed to the
"cheating."
4) All players have a responsibility and an obligation to police the
games.
5) When players are too lax in policing the games the quality of the
games will deteriorate.
6) All players have a responsibility and and an obligation to inform card
room management about unethical player practices that they encounter.
Policing games isn't much fun I will admit. Nobody likes to come off as
a cry baby. On the other hand, why let undesirable types get away with
things that they aren't supposed to be able to get away with and control
what goes on. What I have noticed over the years, generally speaking,
is that the bettor players are more enjoyable to play with. You may not
win much or lose to them but the playing experience is more enjoyable.
Most of the undesirable types are losers and so players tend to tolerate
their crap more. The players shouldn't because it damages the overall
quality of the games and why should the undesirable types have control
of the games anyway.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jessica Vecchione
>Policing games isn't much fun I will admit. Nobody likes to come off as
>a cry baby. On the other hand, why let undesirable types get away with
>things that they aren't supposed to be able to get away with and control
>what goes on.
What I am about to relate is second-hand information. A friend of mine
is playing in Atlantic City and told me the following:
He has complained very often about the conduct of regulars in the
10-20 and 20-40 games at the Taj. One thing that happens is after a
hand is over, chips go flying across the table to pre-arranged
partners. This is common practice. When he complained to the
management, he was labeled a cry-baby. If this is true, why should
these regulars control the game and create an enviornment that looks
more like a home game then a casino game? How does this look to a
player unfamiliar with the casino? Apparently nothing is said and
either the floor doesn't know or looks the other way. My friend
reported this behavior to the manager, she was shocked and appalled,
and claimed she didn't know it was going on.
My friend isn't shy about complaining when he thinks unprofessional or
questionable practices are occurring. I find that I'm not as bold as
I'd like to be. However, I think it is important that we all be
"cry-babies" and report unprofessional practices when we see them. As
a regular in the Las Vegas 10-20 and 6-12 games I do see myself as
having a responsiblity to help keep the game comfortable for visitors.
Not only because I want to see tourist come back, but because it is
common courtesy. I don't complain about a bad beat, I don't tell
people how to play, I don't act like the novice is an idiot. If I see
another regular try to get away with bending the rules to his or her
favor, I try to muster up my courage and complain. If I see a regular
act insulting to a tourist, I try to have the courage to speak-up
about it. I hope other regulars in their local joints feel the same
way. I think that if the regulars adopt this stance, it goes a long
way in helping to police the games.
One word on the Las Vegas 10-20, 6-12 games. I feel that the large
percentage of regulars act very courteously and professionally. I
can't image the alleged AC stuff ever going on in these games for very
long.
Jessica Vecchione
David Monaghan
On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 07:51:33 -0600, tha...@nmia.com wrote:
Summary: Hero allows bad player to give poor advice to novice during
game. On last hand bad players advice allows novice to split pot when
runner runner straight hits the board. Hero promptly has bad player
ejected and regrets not acting sooner.
You haven't said how many other outs the novice had or the pot odds
but if the novice needed a double hit to win anything I think you
should be encouraging this sort of thing rather than stopping it.
Presumably, this was also your line of thought until the suckout.
Sounds to me like you found a new way to go on tilt.....
DaveM
Maverick
On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Dennis Yelle wrote:
> Is there any way we can get the dealers to actually
> enforce the written rules, or, at least, report the
> violations they witness to the floorman?
I'd suggest not tipping them when they don't enforce the rules, but it'd
start another Jihad.
> Many dealers seem to think that they are supposed to
> sit silently and just watch this kind of stuff.
Ya...I had one dealer who used to deal to Puggy Pearson tell me that
he'd short chip the pot all the time and wouldn't say anything about it.
> What do you other players think about this?
Dennis Yelle
In article <3487d9e4....@nntp.ix.netcom.com> JessicaV...@TwoPlusTwo.com (Jessica Vecchione) writes:
[...]
>He has complained very often about the conduct of regulars in the
>10-20 and 20-40 games at the Taj. One thing that happens is after a
>hand is over, chips go flying across the table to pre-arranged
>partners. This is common practice. When he complained to the
>management, he was labeled a cry-baby.
I am assuming these games have a house-paid dealer.
It seems to me that stuff like this which is clearly a
violation of the written rules, should be stopped by the dealer.
Is there any way we can get the dealers to actually
enforce the written rules, or, at least, report the
violations they witness to the floorman?
Many dealers seem to think that they are supposed to
sit silently and just watch this kind of stuff.
What do you other players think about this?
--
den...@netcom.com (Dennis Yelle)
"You must do the thing you think you cannot do." -- Eleanor Roosevelt
TEX DOLLY
who do you suppose made the rule that you are supposed to not say anything when
you see something wrong in a poker game? a honest player or a cheater?
doyle
brunson
William Chen
In article <8813296...@dejanews.com>,
tha...@nmia.com wrote:
>This is a situation where I permitted "cheating" to occur that to my
>grief cost me half a pot. I was playing hold'em years ago in a very
I think you were taking a double shot and justly deserved what you got.
You deliberately allowed the person behind the novice to give advice even
though you knew it was against the rules, then you lost half the pot and
decided to complain. What if you had won the pot? You would have said nothing
and allowed them to continue playing, i suppose. You said the "rounder"
apoloigized but you wouldn't accept it. Methinks you would have been more
gracious had the river been different and you won the pot. Frankly, I don't
see why the result of the hand should logically affect how you felt toward the
pair?
Bill
tha...@nmia.com
The whole point is that when players are lax in allowing cheating to
occur the quality of the games deteriorate. The fact that the players
were poor should have had no influence on how I acted. Even if I won a
major pot against the novice player as I allowed him to violate the rules
it should not have mattered. A basic, vital rule was being violated and I
should have said something immediately. When I didn't I condoned the
cheating and contributed to it. What is blatent cheating to one person
might be acceptable to another. Pinging is a practice that doesn't
bother some but to me it is reprehensible. When I see it happening in a
game that I am thinking about playing in, guess what? I'm not playing.
To some others two players to a hand might not bother them but to others
it is blatant cheating. Where do you draw the line? I realize that
rules vary from card room to card room but there are three rules that are
consistent from card room to card room: 1) One player to a hand while the
hand is in play. 2) Every player plays for himself in a game. 3) Players
can't take money off of the table.
If these rules are consistently bent, abused and/or violated the quality
of the games suffer. This is bad for players and the card rooms.
My other point is that players tolerate inappropriate behavior and rule
violations from players because the players whose acts are questionable
are losing players. They shouldn't be tolerated.
tha...@nmia.com
Maybe but this will not happen. Dealers are interested in dealing the
hands, making sure the pot is right,pushing the pot to the winner(s), and
getting their toke. Maybe this is how it should be. With all of the
talk on the forum about tipping and dealer speed it should be clear that
there is no incentive for dealers to get involved in enforcing rules and
policing games. Less hands per hour means less tokes. Most dealers if
they hear no complaints will assume that the players are tolerating or
don't care about questionable behavior.
tha...@nmia.com
In article <66b9ct$j...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>,
Later on in my post I say the following which I believe makes the same
points you are making:
1) I should have told the rounder and the novice immediately that their
behavior was cheating and told them to desist.
2) If I wasn't satisfied I should have gone immediately to the floor
man.
3) Since I didn't say anything I condoned and contributed to the
"cheating."
I agree with you I got what I deserved. I was WRONG. My point really
has nothing to do with losing half a pot. By allowing the cheating to go
on I was in effect cheating. I had no right to get angry or complain.
If you permit cheating to occur and you get cheated yourself, then you
have nothing to complain about if you yourself get cheated, in my
opinion.
Steve
tha...@nmia.com wrote in message <8814401...@dejanews.com>...
>Maybe but this will not happen. Dealers are interested in dealing the
>hands, making sure the pot is right,pushing the pot to the winner(s), and
>getting their toke. Maybe this is how it should be. With all of the
>talk on the forum about tipping and dealer speed it should be clear that
>there is no incentive for dealers to get involved in enforcing rules and
>policing games. Less hands per hour means less tokes. Most dealers if
>they hear no complaints will assume that the players are tolerating or
>don't care about questionable behavior.
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
That may be, but the experiences I have had (mainly at the Plaza), the
dealers will talk with the Floorman after they get off the table and the
floorman will then watch what is going on. Sometimes they would flag the
floorman over before getting off the table. Good crew there.
My feeling is that if something is going on and the crew doesn't do anything
about, eventually it will start effecting the tokes. The casino in the long
run wants the players to feel comfortable and keep playing.
Just my thoughts on very long thread
Steve
joe miranda
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97120...@guzzler.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> Ya...I had one dealer who used to deal to Puggy Pearson tell me that
>he'd short chip the pot all the time and wouldn't say anything about it.
>
>
Since you ask, Maverick, I'll tell you. Knowing the Las Vegas mind set,
the dealer probably said nothing because if he had, "Puggy" would probably
gotten up and gone to the floormen and ended up getting the dealer fired.
Next day "Puggy" would have come in at his regular time and the dealer
would have been down at the unemployment office filling out forms. I'm sure
you would probably rather think that the dealer was at fault somehow, but
in Vegas, not so long ago it was almost acceptable behavior for a player
suffering a bad beat to pull it out and piss on the dealer. At least it
happened, and that's a fact.
Mike Caro
Joe --
That happened a whole BUNCH of years ago. Not sure it was aimed at the
dealer either. As I heard it (from dealer's husband, if we're talking
about the same incident), it might have splashed. Had to remind us,
eh? Now I don't feel like finishing my Big Mac.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
On Sun, 07 Dec 1997 00:13:03 GMT, joe miranda <mir...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Will Espin
On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 11:07:33 GMT, JessicaV...@TwoPlusTwo.com
(Jessica Vecchione) wrote:
[deleted section where author mentions alleged 'chip passing' in
Atlantic City and describes discomfort with making complaints to
management]
First, please accept my apology for the extreme editing. I do not feel
my comments would adequately address all the author's comments,
however, I do want to address some parts.
At the Tropicana, it is against rules to pass chips back and forth and
repeated occurences could result in a player losing playing privileges
in the poker room.
As for complaints: Players should complain ( I prefer the phrase
'educate management' ) whenever there is an impropriety in any poker
game. Our goals are the same, to achieve an ethical and fair game.
I recommend a non-confrontational method whereby the player with the
complaint would seek out a supervisor away from the table and alert
them. Then management could then observe and correct any improper
behavior.
In situations such as repeated 'chip passing', flashing cards, etc.
our supervisors strive to never 'middle' a player. We will proceed to
watch on the basis of the lead but will act only on behavior we
observe first hand. This minimizes the chance of any retribution from
player towards another player.
Of course, this is not always possible. Sometimes the complaint has to
do with the issue and pot at hand. There can also be situations where
the violation is so flagrant that it must be addressed immediately,
e.g. a player threatens another with physical harm. At those times ask
for a supervisor immediately. Then describe the situation to the
supervisor (floorman) without directly talking to the other player
involved.
It is always best, from my point of view, to avoid direct
confrontations that are player to player. Poker supervisors should be
trained and adept at handling problem situations and players. Let them
assist. Most of the time situations can be kept at a low level rather
than rising to more serious heights.
And Off-Topic: I also welcome Mr. Doyle Brunson to this group. We're
all very fortunate to have his insight from his many years of
experience as a top professional player. I am sure he would have no
recollection but I remember well dealing to him Bill Boyd, Bob Hooks,
Amarillo Slim and others at the Golden Nugget in the early 70's. Time
passes much too quickly.
Aces,
Will
*** VP Poker/Simulcast Tropicana, Atlantic City, NJ ***
*** The opinions and statements made herein are ***
*** personal and do not necessarily reflect the ***
*** position of my employer. ***
tha...@das.honeywell.com
>Subject: Re: Ethics between friends
>From: hitth...@aol.com (HitTheFlop)
>Date: 1997/09/24
>Message-ID: <19970924081...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
>[More Headers]
>In article <19970924000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>klbb...@aol.com (KLBBrown) writes:
>> Every few hands when both were in post-flop,
>>they would show each other their hands and grumble about the garbage they
>>now held before the action even got to them. Sometimes both would fold and
>>sometimes one would call. I believe in the "show one show all" philosophy
>>at showdown, but this was too much! The dealer never said anything and
>>neither did anyone else, but I was disturbed enough to comment casually on
>>it. My point (I apologize for taking so long) is "What would ya'll do in
>>this situation, or is it just me who finds this practice wrong?"
>Iffn they be wearin Bib overalls and straw* hats I keep my trap
>shut an skin 'em slow. Iffn they be lookin like a couple a
>Philladelphia lawyers I call me the floor man and end it quick.
>* John Deer, Cat hat OK
> Best Luck,
Ed
>Yes, it does matter which lane you're in,
>and how fast you're going.
No offense to this particular poster but this is the attitude that I am
talking about when I say players tolerate unethical behavior and cheating
from players they perceive to be losers. Cheating would presumably be
tolerated by HitTheFlop from losing players but not winning players or
ones that appeared as such. It shouldn't be tolerated from anybody.
Lee Jones
In article <348aae34...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
Will Espin <wes...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>I am sure [Doyle Brunson] would have no
>recollection but I remember well dealing to him Bill Boyd, Bob Hooks,
>Amarillo Slim and others at the Golden Nugget in the early 70's.
Will,
I imagine that some of us would *really* enjoy a post or three of the
form:
"Why, I remember the time, around '73, at the Nugget, when..."
Regards, Lee
--
Lee Jones | "Well it might be you, and it might be me,
le...@sgi.com | But it might be the Prince of Peace returning..."
650-933-3356 | -Leon Russell
Dave Horwitz
Lee Jones wrote:
> >I am sure [Doyle Brunson] would have no
> >recollection but I remember well dealing to him Bill Boyd, Bob Hooks,
> >Amarillo Slim and others at the Golden Nugget in the early 70's.
>
> Will,
> I imagine that some of us would *really* enjoy a post or three of the
> form:
>
> "Why, I remember the time, around '73, at the Nugget, when..."
Heh! What a thrilling gift it would be if all the (no offense)
old timers would occassionally post personal anecdotes.
-Quick
monte christensen
[snip]
>
> No offense to this particular poster but this is the attitude that I am
> talking about when I say players tolerate unethical behavior and
cheating
> from players they perceive to be losers. Cheating would presumably be
> tolerated by HitTheFlop from losing players but not winning players or
> ones that appeared as such. It shouldn't be tolerated from anybody.
Most poker rooms that I have played in don't have a specific law about so
called "collusion". Defining exactly what collusion is also is another
tricky question. I have asked several card room managers if it was
specifically against the rules and never get definitive answers. Each
player has a right to call as many bets as he wants and raise as many
times as he wants. So I am not sure that this is even cheating. I am
pretty sure you could not be prosecuted for it like you could for holding
out cards, stealing chips, or introducing new cards.
Personally the people I have seen attempt to do this have been such weak
players that I wouldn't care really either way. I just want them to play
in a lot of pots, which they do anyhow.
tha...@das.honeywell.com
>
>Most poker rooms that I have played in don't have a specific law about so
>called "collusion". Defining exactly what collusion is also is another
>tricky question. I have asked several card room managers if it was
>specifically against the rules and never get definitive answers.
I don't think I want to play in any of these rooms. If they have trouble
defining what it means to have one player to a hand, they have serious problems.
> Each player has a right to call as many bets as he wants and raise as many
>times as he wants.
I don't see what this has to do with collusion.
>So I am not sure that this is even cheating.
Every card room I have ever played at if the one player to a hand rule is
violated it is considered cheating and I should hope it is in every poker room.
>I am pretty sure you could not be prosecuted for it like you could for holding
>>out cards, stealing chips, or introducing new cards.
This is probably true in most places. I am not sure that you can be prosecuted
in Nevada for holding out cards in a poker game. Does anyone know if this is
true? In blackjack you can because you are bilking the house but I honestly
don't know about poker in Nevada. I would think that stealing chips would be a
prosecutable offense as I hope thievary is against the law.
>
>Personally the people I have seen attempt to do this have been such weak
>players that I wouldn't care really either way. I just want them to play
>in a lot of pots, which they do anyhow.
>
In the same game, would you mind if I brought two of my friends and we flashed
our cards at each other during the play of the hand? I mean if you let two
players get away with it why not let three more? If you have a problem with the
losing players who are terrible I don't know where you would draw the line? Or
would you?
Tad Perry
In article <01bd0451.cfca36c0$a556379d@MONTEC3> "monte christensen" <mon...@microsoft.com> writes:
>[snip]
>
>>
>> No offense to this particular poster but this is the attitude that I am
>> talking about when I say players tolerate unethical behavior and
>cheating
>> from players they perceive to be losers. Cheating would presumably be
>> tolerated by HitTheFlop from losing players but not winning players or
>> ones that appeared as such. It shouldn't be tolerated from anybody.
>
>called "collusion". Defining exactly what collusion is also is another
>tricky question. I have asked several card room managers if it was
>player has a right to call as many bets as he wants and raise as many
>pretty sure you could not be prosecuted for it like you could for holding
>out cards, stealing chips, or introducing new cards.
>
>players that I wouldn't care really either way. I just want them to play
>in a lot of pots, which they do anyhow.
Just another case of greed getting in the way of what's right. That's
what I was saying in the other post. We put up with this shit to keep
the game's running. Should we? The reason you're going to cite is that
it's good for your wallet. Not that it's good for the game.
Tad Perry
VC61
>Heh! What a thrilling gift it would be if all the (no offense)
>old timers would occassionally post personal anecdotes.
In early 1952 I was on my way to Korea via San Diego. I'd never been West of
the Hudson River in my then-young life and I was determined to see the Grand
Canyon so I used my travel money to buy a bus ticket which routed me through
that area.
On a whim I decided to see what Las Vegas was all about so I asked to be
ticketed through there. True story: The Greyhound ticket agent asked "Nevada
or New Mexico?" when I asked for Las Vegas. Times change.
The bus terminal in Vegas was where it is now, near Fremont Street. And
downtown was where the real action was in '52. (The Strip, back then, was
still pretty much a dream in Bugsy's eye.) You had a decent gambling stake if
you had $20. SILVER silver dollars were the only $1 chips in play and you'd
see relatively few $5 and up clay chips at the crap table. This was long before
any egg heads taught us how to "beat the dealer" and the crap table was where
all the real gambling took place ... with BJ tables far less numerous than they
are today.
The Horseshoe was something of a sawdust joint back then. No frills, nothing at
all like the neon glitz of today. I would guess that a silver dollar bet was
the equivalent of at least a $10 bet today so the table minimums were often set
at 50 cents ... or even a REAL quarter. (I seem to recall they had chips for
real nickels, dimes, & quarters to make it easier for the dealers to handle
them ... especially the dimes.)
Anyway I was having a pretty good run at craps ... a game I'd never played
before other than on a blanket in the back of the barracks. I was holding the
dice when, on a whim, I tossed a silver dollar on boxcars and it hit for the
huge 30-1 payoff ... about a half a month's pay for me back then. So, of
course, I left the $1 up there ... and it hit AGAIN, getting some attention
from the pit. They pulled in my dice and it seemed to me they were looking at
them for about an hour before they gave them back to me.
Very shortly, after the dice had passed me, a middle-aged man came up to me and
started asking me some "what's your name & where are you from" questions. It
turned out to be Benny Binion and, to this day, I've fantasized that I was
getting a little heat.
But Benny ended up inviting me to dinner and asking me if I had a place to stay
... my very first Vegas comp. (I heard, later, that he treated servicemen ...
in uniform ... like kings back then.) Anyway, after my first tour in Korea, I
came back to Vegas for a weekend and Benny remembered me ... by name ... and
made me feel like the highest of high rollers. (I don't suppose Jack was much
more than a very young kid back then.)
It was a time ... and a man ... I will never forget.
Bill Alan
Addenda:
I remember being thrilled that the dealer HAD to hit up to a 17 in blackjack.
In barracks games the dealer, who banked the game, could stand on anything he
wanted to.
I also remember that a jackpot on a slot machine was always (and only) 20
coins, with lots of "fruit" payoffs of 2, 3, 5, & 10 coins in between. I think
virtually all of the slots were nickel machines back then (with plenty of penny
machines too) and they were frequently set up facing on Fremont Street from an
open-front casino to attract the tourists. They were all mechanical machines,
and many of them were made to look like a badass cowboy with a cast iron hand
for a pull handle ... the original "one-armed bandit". Benny hated them, but he
told me he tolerated slots because it gave "them" something to do while their
husbands were at the tables. (You next-to-never saw a woman at a crap table in
1952!)
Dave Horwitz
VC61 wrote:
> On a whim I decided to see what Las Vegas was all about so I asked to be
> ticketed through there. True story: The Greyhound ticket agent asked "Nevada
> or New Mexico?" when I asked for Las Vegas. Times change.
> It was a time ... and a man ... I will never forget.
Thanks so much for a warm and fascinating story. By the way,
I think you write superbly... a seemingly dying art.
-Quick
mail.uhs.utexas.edu
FLETCH
I couldn't agree more, I love these old stories. Thanks for posting it.
FLETCH
--
Note: to reply by e-mail, remove " .nospam " from my
address. FLETCH
Mike Caro
Of course, YOU'RE "very fortunate to have his insight from his many
years of experience," Will Espin.
Doyle Brunson didn't broadcast to the whole damn world that he knew
YOU were nuts.
Good to hear your voice again.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
On Sun, 07 Dec 1997 14:51:51 GMT, wes...@bellatlantic.net (Will Espin)
wrote:
Lee Jones
In article <348DC803...@mail.uhs.utexas.edu>,
Our server, which is usually spot-on, never brought this in. Could
somebody send me a copy over email?
Thanks, Lee
--
Lee Jones | "Let's do the Time Warp again."
le...@sgi.com | -Rocky Horror Picture Show
650-933-3356 |
Ed Barrett
RE:Bill Alan's trip to LV and meeting with Benny Binion.
What is this, a special Christmas gift? A plethora of entertaining
reports from Nolan, a follow up by Tiger and now a very well written
touch of nostalgia from Bill Alan. My poker cup runneth over with all
these excellent reports.
Ed Barrett
monte christensen
> >Most poker rooms that I have played in don't have a specific law about
so
> >called "collusion". Defining exactly what collusion is also is another
> >tricky question. I have asked several card room managers if it was
> >specifically against the rules and never get definitive answers. Each
> >player has a right to call as many bets as he wants and raise as many
> >times as he wants. So I am not sure that this is even cheating. I am
> >pretty sure you could not be prosecuted for it like you could for
holding
> >out cards, stealing chips, or introducing new cards.
> >
> >Personally the people I have seen attempt to do this have been such
weak
> >players that I wouldn't care really either way. I just want them to
play
> >in a lot of pots, which they do anyhow.
>
> Just another case of greed getting in the way of what's right. That's
> what I was saying in the other post. We put up with this shit to keep
> the game's running. Should we? The reason you're going to cite is that
> it's good for your wallet. Not that it's good for the game.
How can you really stop it. Of course I am only talking about the case of
collusion that was mentioned above. If 2 friends want to try and force
others out of the game by constantly raising when they are in the pot
there is no rule that I know of agains this. Flashing cards or something
like that is against the rules unless all players see the cards.
I know everybody wants to believe it is against the rules, but where is it
written that two players can't decide to both stay in the pot so that they
can raise back and forth other players? How are you going to prove it is
actually collusion though? They have the right to stay in each pot and
raise/call whenever they want to. So the reason I am citing is that I see
now rule to say you can't do this. I hear a lot of people say you
shouldn't but that is much different. To me it is like the moralist who
claims others should not do something such as drink, even though this is
perfectly legal. I think players acting like I claim above is perfectly
legal and I have not seen one cardroom in NV, Wa., or Ca. that has
specific, concrete, enforceable rules to say differently. If you have
please let me know where and better yet post the exact wording of the
rules.
> Tad Perry
monte christensen
>
> I don't think I want to play in any of these rooms. If they have
trouble
> defining what it means to have one player to a hand, they have serious
problems.
My guess is that the rooms you are playing in also have no specific rules
about players who raise back and forth all of the time. How can the poker
room know for sure that they have planned this instead of just playing
like this as part of their normal game.
> > Each player has a right to call as many bets as he wants and raise as
many
> >times as he wants.
>
> I don't see what this has to do with collusion.
This is what the original post about collusion was all about. The 2
players were raising back and forth against other players.
> >So I am not sure that this is even cheating.
>
> Every card room I have ever played at if the one player to a hand rule
is
> violated it is considered cheating and I should hope it is in every
poker room.
One player to a hand I think refers to not talking about the cards,
flashing cards etc. YOu could try to generalize this to raising others
out of pots but good luck.
> >I am pretty sure you could not be prosecuted for it like you could for
holding
> >>out cards, stealing chips, or introducing new cards.
>
> This is probably true in most places. I am not sure that you can be
prosecuted
> in Nevada for holding out cards in a poker game. Does anyone know if
this is
> true? In blackjack you can because you are bilking the house but I
honestly
> don't know about poker in Nevada. I would think that stealing chips
would be a
> prosecutable offense as I hope thievary is against the law.
You can definitely be prosecuted for cheating like this in NV. I have
personally seen it happen one time when someone at another table was
actually caught with a extra card and security hauled him into the back
room.
> >Personally the people I have seen attempt to do this have been such
weak
> >players that I wouldn't care really either way. I just want them to
play
> >in a lot of pots, which they do anyhow.
> >
>
> In the same game, would you mind if I brought two of my friends and we
flashed
> our cards at each other during the play of the hand? I mean if you let
two
> players get away with it why not let three more? If you have a problem
with the
> losing players who are terrible I don't know where you would draw the
line? Or
> would you?
You can bring as many of your friends as you want and follow the rules.
However flashing cards to only certain players is explicitly against the
rules here in Seattle and almost everywhere else. If you and your friends
want to come play 20-40 and try to raise and re-raise me out of pots that
is fine with me. You will have to worry about 3-4 other calling stations
in the game though.
I am not saying this is good for the game or should be allowed. I am
strictly just saying that I believe there is no rule against 2 players
trying to raise other opponents out of the pot. I do this often without
colluding before hands when a weak player bets in front of me and I have a
weak hand that I would otherwise not even bet with but I may raise to get
the pot heads up.
tha...@nmia.com
>klbb...@aol.com (KLBBrown) writes:
>> Every few hands when both were in post-flop,
>>they would show each other their hands and grumble about the garbage they
>>now held before the action even got to them. Sometimes both would fold and
>>sometimes one would call. I believe in the "show one show all" philosophy
>>at showdown, but this was too much! The dealer never said anything and
>>neither did anyone else, but I was disturbed enough to comment casually on
>>it. My point (I apologize for taking so long) is "What would ya'll do in
>>this situation, or is it just me who finds this practice wrong?"
>Iffn they be wearin Bib overalls and straw* hats I keep my trap
>shut an skin 'em slow. Iffn they be lookin like a couple a
>Philladelphia lawyers I call me the floor man and end it quick.
>* John Deer, Cat hat OK
> Best Luck,
Ed
>Yes, it does matter which lane you're in,
>and how fast you're going.
I was referring to this post and to the following statement in particular.
>> Every few hands when both were in post-flop,
>>they would show each other their hands and grumble about the garbage they
>>now held before the action even got to them.
Now I don't know how we got on raising somebody out of a pot but it is clear
that the complaint was about players showing each other their hands which I
think we both agree is against the rules. My point is that HitTheFlop, as well
as many other players, would allow this kind of cheating to take place if the
players appeared to be losing players. All players say they detest collusion
but if they knowingly allow it to happen in a game, then I think they have
little to complain about.
The way I understand your point is that certain types of collusion are very hard
to detect. I agree with that point. As far as I know my post didn't address
that issue nor was it intended to.
Know as far as casino personnel removing a player from a game and taking them to
a back room being conclusive proof that an activity is against the law. This is
just not the case. For instance card counters are barred all the time from
casino blackjack tables. There are many documented cases of card counters being
removed by security personnel and taken to back rooms. Card counting is legal.
Casinos in Nevada have the right to bar undesirables (in their opinion) from
their premises. When someone is caught with a cheating device in the poker
room,such as the player who had the hold out device at the Mirage, the casino
will probably come down very hard on such an individual. You know what. I'd be
willing to bet that the hold out cheat was never prosecuted or even arrested. I
hope someone can clear this issue up. Furthermore I'll bet that he didn't
break any laws pertaining to poker. I'll bet if this same person was caught
cheating at the Mirage blackjack tables that he would be vigorously prosecuted.
Lee Jones
In article <66lb0h$6r...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
Lee Jones <le...@diver.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>Our server, which is usually spot-on, never brought this in. Could
>somebody send me a copy over email?
Got it - thanks to all who sent it. It was *exactly* what I had hoped for.
Mr. Espin, it's on you.
Regards, Lee
--
Lee Jones | "Though it's cold and lonely in the deep dark night,
le...@sgi.com | I can see paradise by the dashboard light."
650-933-3356 | -Meatloaf
HitTheFlop
> My point is that HitTheFlop, as well
as many other players, would allow this
>kind of cheating to take place if the
players appeared to be losing players.
>All players say they detest collusion
but if they knowingly allow it to
>happen in a game, then I think they have
little to complain about.
I was content to let this attempt at humor die but since
thaley is certain how I would behave and anxious to
tell all, I must jump in here. The dealer, not myself,
is responsible for stopping a couple of good ole boys
from exposing their cards. I'm not going to be the
bad guy here. I'm not going to piss off some losing
players when it's obvious they can not cheat me because
they are clueless.
thaley, find someone else's ethics to question.
Best Luck,
Ed
Access to power must be confined to those who
are not in love with it. Plato
AaMarkHays
HitTheFlop wrote:
>I was content to let this attempt at humor die but since
>thaley is certain how I would behave and anxious to
>tell all,
Ed,
I'd like to know when you were elected the Rec.Gambling.Poker whipping boy.
Between accusations of sphincterhood, imposter posters, and misinterpretations
one would think it was you that started that "I'm a jerk and proud of it"
thread.
Don't sweat the small shits.
Mark
They either fear their fate too much,
Or their desserts are small,
Who dare not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all.
Mike Caro
Just for the record, when beginning or giggly and well-mannered losing
players show each other cards, there is usually no collusion involved.
In our quest to keep poker free of cheating, we can further damage the
game by targeting those who are having a good time and making them
feel uncomfortable. Common sense should rule in these cases. If you
feel that a good-natured advisory is in order, go ahead and tell the
weak players that what they're doing that is against the rules.
There are two governing philosophies about rules of all types, not
just poker: (1) Rules should be rigidly enforced; (2) Rules should
accomplish their mission by being applied in regard to the originally
intended result.
I find myself on each side of these philosophies from time to time. In
the context of poker, though, there are not enough -- nor can there
ever be enough -- specific rules to cover all aspects of play without
severely damaging the game should someone choose to enforce them all.
What I think is good for poker is to be tough as tough can be against
cheaters and quite tolerant of the mistakes made by innocent opponents
who are enjoying the game. As just one of many possible examples, if
someone new to poker only shows the winning cards at seven-stud,
rather than all seven cards, I will never ask that the hand be killed.
Also, if weak opponents show me cards accidentally, I don't take
advantage of this. But that's something that I decided to do almost 20
years ago. It is not a creed that everyone should adopt, and I'm not
even sure it has anything to do with rules or ethics. There are good
arguments to the contrary.
Generally, I believe weaker players should be made to feel
comfortable, even if it means giving them breaks. However, the
argument that if you strictly enforce all rules, they'll learn faster
is a good one, too -- assuming they'll come back to the game tomorrow.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
AaMarkHays
Mike Caro Wrote:
>Generally, I believe weaker players should be made to feel
>comfortable, even if it means giving them breaks. However, the
>argument that if you strictly enforce all rules, they'll learn faster
>is a good one, too -- assuming they'll come back to the game tomorrow.
Total agreement from me. The most common example I have seen is when new
players will roll their holdem hand over on top of the flop. Technically it's
mucked but no one I've ever played with has called it. The offender is always
warned by the dealer to roll their hand in front of them and let the dealer
read it. The few times it's happened twice the dealer looked at the other
player to see if there was an objection. Keeping silent as he should. Both
times the player was again informed of his transgression and told there would
be no third chance.
Tad Perry
In article <349023c1...@NNTP.IX.netcom.com> ca...@caro.com (Mike Caro) writes:
>
>What I think is good for poker is to be tough as tough can be against
>cheaters and quite tolerant of the mistakes made by innocent opponents
>who are enjoying the game. As just one of many possible examples, if
>someone new to poker only shows the winning cards at seven-stud,
>rather than all seven cards, I will never ask that the hand be killed.
>
>Also, if weak opponents show me cards accidentally, I don't take
>advantage of this. But that's something that I decided to do almost 20
>years ago. It is not a creed that everyone should adopt, and I'm not
>even sure it has anything to do with rules or ethics. There are good
>arguments to the contrary.
One time I did this:
There was an ace high straight showing on board and a new player checked
to me and I bet thinking he might be new enough to fold. He did. Cards
totally hit the muck in a self-dealt game.
I split the pot with him.
Don't ask me why. One the one hand I bet to see if he would fold in
an attempt to win it all. On the other hand when what I was looking
for happened I returned him his share.
I guess I just wanted to make the move for the move's sake and wasn't
interested in the money that time.
Tad
tha...@nmia.com
>
>I was content to let this attempt at humor die but since
>thaley is certain how I would behave and anxious to
>is responsible for stopping a couple of good ole boys
>from exposing their cards. I'm not going to be the
>bad guy here. I'm not going to piss off some losing
>players when it's obvious they can not cheat me because
>they are clueless.
>
>thaley, find someone else's ethics to question.
>
> Best Luck,
> Ed
>
>Access to power must be confined to those who
>are not in love with it. Plato
>
of people that wear John Dere hats and bib overalls) are clueless morons. The
best that can be said about this attitude is that it is narrow minded. Another
piece of HitTheFlop wisdom: your profits will certainly be diminshed if you
remind players that they are violating the rules. I know that I shouldn't
contradict an old pro like you but in my opinion there is no basis for that
statement. I would think just the opposite would be true. Another morsel of
wisdom from HitTheFlop: you can't lose money to clueless players that cheat.
Again I don't mean to contradict your vast wisdom on these matters but I thought
that you were much more likely to get cheated by losing players.
If you go back and read this thread, HitTheFlop was the only poster that did not
recommend immediate action to put a stop to this behavior. In all fairness to
you an Atlantic City dealer responded saying the dealer should have put a stop
to it. Perhaps so but this is unlikely to happen for a variety of reasons.
HitTheFlop rails on about cheating and how bad it is. I am getting the distinct
impression that he feels that cheating in a low limit game doesn't matter that
much. I disagree but perhaps he is correct. On that note I will leave you with
another HitTheFlop post:
Subject: Re: Detecting "partner schemes" in cardrooms and home games
From: hitth...@aol.com (HitTheFlop)
Date: 1997/09/16
Message-ID: <19970916034...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
[More Headers]
snow...@animal.blarg.net (Matt Blumenfeld) writes:
>Well, I can say on the subject of what limit game people will cheat at
>that I used to play in a quarter poker (.25-..50-.75-1.00, actually) game
>in which there were a number of "teams" working.
Matt and I grew up in this game. I once commented to a
house man that I was really surprised that people would
cheat in such a small game. His reply was "Well, they
got to learn somewhere."
Tom Haley
TEX DOLLY
tothose who knew Benny Binion you might enjoy one of his many sayings- Benny
believes in justice. he spelled it just us. doyle
brunson
SuckOutDog
> Benny
>believes in justice. he spelled it just us. doyle
Doyle: When did Benny die? How old was he? I never met the man. I imagine
that you have many stories you could tell us about him.
TEX DOLLY
Benny Binion was 86 years young when he died in 1990. he had more interesting
stories than anyone i ever knew. Doyle
Brunson
Maverick
On 15 Dec 1997, TEX DOLLY wrote:
>
> tothose who knew Benny Binion you might enjoy one of his many sayings- Benny
> believes in justice. he spelled it just us. doyle
>
Maybe that's why they take it a bit seriously when they catch you counting
cards at Blackjack in their place.
VC61
>Benny Binion was 86 years young when he died in 1990. he had more interesting
stories than anyone i ever knew. Doyle Brunson
Thanks Dolly -
That confirms my impression that Benny was about 50
when he treated me with kindness in 1952. (My age: 22)
A truly wonderful man.
Bill Alan
>
>
Mason Clarke
In article <19971215214...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
vc...@aol.com says...
even more marked kindness to the young gamblers. His entire
operation depended on repeat business and he acted like each and
every player MATTERED.
Given the corporate ownership of the modern casinos, we shall not
see his like again.
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
Garrett W. Choi
VC61 wrote:
> Thanks Dolly -
>
> That confirms my impression that Benny was about 50
> when he treated me with kindness in 1952. (My age: 22)
ånd *already* you're on a nickname basis with Doyle Brunson?? :-)
GC.
--
Garrett...@lmco.com
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space, Sunnyvale, California, U.S.A.
John Harkness
John Harkness writes:
TEX DOLLY wrote:
>
> who do you suppose made the rule that you are supposed to not say anything when
> you see something wrong in a poker game? a honest player or a cheater?
> doyle
> brunson
Interesting thought.
I was playing 5-10 in Toronto a while ago, and not involved in the pot.
Fellow at my turns over KQ to go with the K-Q-9-2-2 on the board and
said "I've got two pair."
The player on my left said "I've just got aces" and flipped them up on
the table. The dealer pushed the pot to my right, which he began to
stack with indecent haste, when I suddenly realized and said "That's not
his pot -- she has a better two pair."
Huge controversy, floorman called over, the guy with the KQ is pissed
off at me. "he's not in hand, he shouldn't say anything." I say that I
didn't say anything -- the cards speak. He refuses to surrender the pot,
the floorman took the pot amount $80 or so out of the rack and gave it
to the woman who'd actually won the hand and turfed the other guy. And
he thought it was my fault.
John
John Harkness
John Harkness writes:
Will Espin wrote:
SNIP INTERESTING POST ON MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE ON COLLUSIVE CHEATING
INTERVENTION
> And Off-Topic: I also welcome Mr. Doyle Brunson to this group. We're
> all very fortunate to have his insight from his many years of
> experience as a top professional player. I am sure he would have no
> recollection but I remember well dealing to him Bill Boyd, Bob Hooks,
> Amarillo Slim and others at the Golden Nugget in the early 70's. Time
> passes much too quickly.
> Aces,
> Will
> *** VP Poker/Simulcast Tropicana, Atlantic City, NJ ***
> *** The opinions and statements made herein are ***
> *** personal and do not necessarily reflect the ***
> *** position of my employer. ***
Do you remember dealing to that crew in the same game? If so, we want
details!
Thanks in advance.
John
CRFERRY
I was dealing to Slim today. I will ask him on Sat. if he remembers what you
wanted to know.
Chuck
WILLIAM G JAMES
I've had dealers misread a hand and push me the pot when I didn't have the
best hand. My response is to leave the pot sit there in front of me, and if
the next hand is dealt without a correction I stack em. But, generally this
will get the dealers attention.
It is the dealers job to read the cards, regardless of what any player says
they have. I've played at houses where the rule was the dealer had to make
up for the estimated size of the pot if the other player wouldn't surrender
it after mixing the pot in with his stack. Bad dealers don't last long
there.
For the most part, self-appointed "table captains" irrate me, and are
generaly disruptive. These are the same players who want to read off the
board and possibilities out loud when not in the pot. I think they are just
trying to impress the rest of the table with how smart they are (almost
always are NOT).
In general, I say it is better to keep your mouth shut if not in the pot.
You have nothing to gain by correcting the play. But, if I'm in the pot, I
will holler if I can't clearly see what the better hand is. Yeah, you might
piss off a few dealers doing this, but they will get over it.
Billy
TIGER123
WILLIAM G JAMES <WILLIA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
[snip]
>It is the dealers job to read the cards, regardless of what any player says
>they have.
>
[snip]
>For the most part, self-appointed "table captains" irrate me, and are
>generaly disruptive
[snip]
>In general, I say it is better to keep your mouth shut if not in the pot.
>You have nothing to gain by correcting the play.
-------------
i disagree with the previous poster that a player with no monetary interest in
the pot must remain silent when a violation occurs.
i believe that it is in the game's best interests if all players do what is
necessary to ensure that the rules (general poker rules and specific "house
rules") are followed. the rules are intended and designed to protect *all*
players - not just those who are aware of them.
in fact, the rulebooks of some rooms (e.g., tropicana and taj mahal in atlantic
city) explicitly impose the ethical obligation upon all players at the table to
rectify the improper award of a pot.
tiger <niceh...@wellplayed.com>
CRFERRY
>>It is the dealers job to read the cards, regardless of what any player says
>>they have.
If you will look on the wall for the house rules it should have!
1. PLAYERS MUST PROTECT THEIR OWN HAND
2. DEALERS WILL ASSIST IN READING HANDS
Most poker rooms do not go by these rules to the letter of the rule. Why have a
rule if we are not going to use it?????
Luck
Chuck
tha...@nmia.com
In article <19971223144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, crf...@aol.com
says...
- Player A and Player B are the only players involved in showdown at HE.
- Board is Jh 10h 7s 6s 8h.
- Player A has Ah 2h.
- Player B has Qh 9h.
- Both players turn their hands face up at showdown after the betting is over.
- Dealer awards pot to player A. Player B is a greenhorn and doesn't read his
straight flush.
Are you saying that the other players should say nothing when noticing this
wrong read by the dealer? I think they should say something and say it quick.
This is a situation that I actually saw in a game.
John Harkness
John Harkness writes:
I think the players should be part of the policing the game and making
sure the pots go to the right player.
I know that I've turned over what I thought were an unimproved pair of
Ks that rivered into a flush in a seven stud game without my noticing it
(focussed on one thing, didn't see the other evolve.)
We protect the other players in the game AT THE SHOWDOWN so that we
ourselves will receive that protection.
Anyway, have you ever seen six poker players shut up at the same time
when the hands turned over at the end?
Regards,
John
Winner777
In a 75-150 holdem game last year, I raised first in on the button with K10, BB
called.
Flop: A K 10 he checks, I bet, he calls.
Turn: Q he checks, I bet, he calls.
River: J he checks, I turn my hand up.
Dealer pushes out the K10 on the board and announces two pair, the BB throws
his hand away and I get the pot.
If anybody at the table would have noticed that there was a straight on the
board they have a moral obligation to say so. I have never seen or would
imagine that something like this would get by a table full of good players but
it did. The guy finally goes for a walk and now the whole table says to me "you
are lucky that guy is such an asshole or you would have only gotten half the
pot" This is a standard practice myself, I will correct the dealer when I see a
mistake unless it is benefitting somebody that I don't like, then I keep quiet.
Anybody at the table may have a moral obligation to read the best hand if the
dealer overlooks it, but nobody is going to do any favors for an asshole.
Ed Hill
CRFERRY
Ed and John are both right. In $50-$100 games and higher the dealer should not
say or do anything untill all hands are mucked and then the winner is pushed
the pot. The players should read the hands not the dealer. In the big big games
the dealer does even less of runing the game. At least this is the way it was
in the 1970's. I have not dealt in a $100-$100-$200 blind or $2000 & $4000 KC
low ball game for 20 years. Maybe things have changed in this modern day.
The rule about the dealer will assist in reading hands is for the smaler limit
games only.
Luck
Chuck
The Voice
> i believe that it is in the game's best interests if all players do what is
> necessary to ensure that the rules (general poker rules and specific "house
> rules") are followed. the rules are intended and designed to protect *all*
> players - not just those who are aware of them.
>
> in fact, the rulebooks of some rooms (e.g., tropicana and taj mahal in atlantic
> city) explicitly impose the ethical obligation upon all players at the table to
> rectify the improper award of a pot.
>
> tiger <niceh...@wellplayed.com>
I haven't played at the Taj, but I know that MOST if not ALL cardrooms
have one simple rule when awarding the pot and that is the old adage:
"CARDS SPEAK"
If the dealer makes a mistake (which by the way happened 3 times a
couple of weeks ago in a small O/8 tourney) Something should be said
BEFORE the pot is pushed or the "loser" is mucked
The Voice
James Morgan
Winner777 (winn...@aol.com) wrote:
: In a 75-150 holdem game last year, I raised first in on the button with K10, BB
: called.
: Flop: A K 10 he checks, I bet, he calls.
: Turn: Q he checks, I bet, he calls.
: River: J he checks, I turn my hand up.
: Dealer pushes out the K10 on the board and announces two pair, the BB throws
: his hand away and I get the pot.
: If anybody at the table would have noticed that there was a straight on the
: board they have a moral obligation to say so.
Actually, this is not true. First, the other player MUST show his
cards. Until that is done, everyone has the moral obligation to shut the
hell up. After the other player shows his hand, the other players have the
right to speak up and indeed probably should do so. However, they are not
morally obligated to do so. Now this is an odd case because the dealer
called out the wrong hand. However, the ultimate responsibility of the
hand lies with the player. If the dealer makes an error and misreads a hand,
the player needs to verify the actual hand. Now I do think that when a
dealer miscalls a hand that players should correct him, but only after all
hands are mucked or exposed. All player assistance should be done ONLY after
the hand is over. The hand is over exactly when all cards are mucked or
exposed.
: I have never seen or would
: imagine that something like this would get by a table full of good players but
: it did. The guy finally goes for a walk and now the whole table says to me
: "you
: are lucky that guy is such an asshole or you would have only gotten half the
: pot" This is a standard practice myself, I will correct the dealer when I
: see a
: mistake unless it is benefitting somebody that I don't like, then I keep
: quiet.
Now wait. If people are morally obligated to speak up in these
situations, then they are so obligated to do so for ALL players, even ones
whom they deem to be assholes.
: Anybody at the table may have a moral obligation to read the best hand if the
: dealer overlooks it, but nobody is going to do any favors for an asshole.
I can understand that one could think such a correction is a moral
obligation (though I disagree in this case since the loser failed to protect
his hand). However to claim this moral obligation disappears for reasons
as simple as "he's an asshole" is clearly wrong. Suppose he did show his
hand and now everyone who sees the error is obligated to point it out.
If so, then YOU! were also obligated to speak up. In fact, by your view, you
acted immmoraly by keeping quiet. Note: This is not my view. I think you
did the right thing, 100%, but your own definitions seem to imply you did
something you consider immoral.
The attitude that "it's OK, cause he is an asshole" is a VERY
dangerous one that when applied to larger issues becomes truly scary.
Jim Morgan
: Ed Hill
KEITHDICE
Poker is a game of skill. A big part of that skill is reading hands. Why
should someone give away part of his skill level reading hands for another? I
say keep your mouth shut if it does not effect you.
Alan Bostick
In article <19980119163...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Having two colluders in a game *does* affect you, because they will win
more than they would if they were not colluding. Even if they never go
after you personally, they will keep you from winning as much as your
natural share. It's like having a second rake taken from every pot.
--
Alan Bostick | "We're not just taking off our clothes and having
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | sex. We've also got karaoke."
news:alt.grelb | "Wild" Bill Goodwin, 71, denying to police he
| conducted orgies in his Costa Mesa, Calif, home
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
