Home game ruling? (1 Viewer)

[BGinGA]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that having a rulebook is not a good idea and it's not an unpopular opinion.

The unpopular part is the delivery of the previous 2 sentences. I mean, I get it but - yeesh guys. 1. It's not a tournament, so, great point? Sure? 2. Shades of soft play is a huge eye roll. I also get this one but read the room. This is a short handed table of people that are pretty friendly and Rob's the host - he's just trying not to be a dick and it was a quick decision made in the middle of the hand with not a ton of objection. I read that as an attack on character with not a ton of contextual information or a real understanding of the nature of the group of people in the room.

So we've got someone with a history of making somewhat obnoxious/cringey comments simply to broadcast their superior knowledge and you're calling OP's character into question? Yeah - that's gonna be a pretty unpopular post.

I think you're reading waaay to much into that post. Never called Rob's character into question; merely pointed out that not betting the nuts as last to act is likely to be viewed as soft-play (which it was), regardless of the player's actual intent.

Rob gets it. No need for the white knight brigade, ffs.

 

[jpietrella]

I think you're reading waaay to much into that post. Never called Rob's character into question; merely pointed out that not betting the nuts as last to act is likely to be viewed as soft-play (which it was), regardless of the player's actual intent.

You're never wrong. Got it.

Yep, that's very on brand!

 

[JustinInMN]

Okay, so given this rule, does a partially exposed river card count as a premature river card?

That is the question, I would say it is. That said, if you are hosting and involved, I 100% sympathize with not wanting to make the ruling yourself here. Going forward, I would identify another player in the game at the outset that you know to have hosting experience just in case you get involved in a situation requiring a ruling. I have a few such players that play at my house. @inca911 is occasionally one of them .

Now if I were such an individual sitting in your game and asked to make the ruling, I would say the card is exposed and will not play. The ruleset you are using matters. Robert's calls for burning and turning the river in the turn card's place and complete the action based on that card, and then shuffling in the exposed card to deal the river which COULD be the exposed card.

A review of your dealing procedures is in order. I hope at a minimum you ban "premature burning," and also encourage dealers to rap the table before burning and turning. You will almost never have this situation again if dealers can do these two things. In my game I am very strict on the premature burning thing, and even though I am the only one that raps the table as well, a premature burn and turn is extremely rare. I would guess I host around 100-150 hours a year and we might have 2-3 tops. (The only one I have ever done is when I was dealing Drawmaha for the first time.)

Keep a hard copy or an easily-accessed link to the rules handy. Nobody should ever be guessing or taking a damn poll.

So much this. And I even ordered 3-hole printer paper a while ago for the purpose of making up a rulebook in a binder. Among my many unfinished projects. But I do have my rules spelled out in my signature link, that's "handy enough."

 

[timinater]

Print out a rulebook, highlight the sections of common irregularities (premature dealing of the board is always a hot topic) and refer to that. No real need to "make a ruling" or a judgement call. The rulebooks are pretty clear about this situation.

I can't fault @upNdown given the dynamics, I've done similar things in the past when these irregularities happen.

 

[CHP TD]

No complaints; in fact, quite the opposite.

Players that also play elsewhere often complain about the overly-lax approach to obvious rule and protocol errors encountered in other games.

Good rules followed accordingly make games better and friendlier.

Absolutly this! If you don't understand why - you have not been hosting for long.

 

[AuburnSeth]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that having a rulebook is not a good idea and it's not an unpopular opinion.

The unpopular part is the delivery of the previous 2 sentences. I mean, I get it but - yeesh guys. 1. It's not a tournament, so, great point? Sure? 2. Shades of soft play is a huge eye roll. I also get this one but read the room. This is a short handed table of people that are pretty friendly and Rob's the host - he's just trying not to be a dick and it was a quick decision made in the middle of the hand with not a ton of objection. I read that as an attack on character with not a ton of contextual information or a real understanding of the nature of the group of people in the room.

So we've got someone with a history of making somewhat obnoxious/cringey comments simply to broadcast their superior knowledge and you're calling OP's character into question? Yeah - that's gonna be a pretty unpopular post.

I’m confused as to your objections. are you suggesting that it is ok for someone to check the nuts, instead of raising when last to act?

 

[glynn]

I’m confused as to your objections. are you suggesting that it is ok for someone to check the nuts, instead of raising when last to act?

Yes, it's fine. Get that post count up!

 

[AuburnSeth]

Yes, it's fine. Get that post count up!

clearly you’re trolling. It’s not ok to check the nuts. The only reasons are collusion, soft play, ignorance to hand strength or forgetfulness

 

[glynn]

clearly you’re trolling. It’s not ok to check the nuts. The only reasons are collusion, soft play, ignorance to hand strength or forgetfulness

You are asking a guy who was literally there whether he is okay with how things played out.

If you are the only one who is confused by something, then the onus is on you to clarify the point of your confusion, not on any of us to guess whatever ambiguous shit you are confused about. Or if you already had an answer in mind, then were you not asking genuinely?

You are acting indistinguishably from someone who really wants Classifieds access

 

[jpietrella]

clearly you’re trolling. It’s not ok to check the nuts. The only reasons are collusion, soft play, ignorance to hand strength or forgetfulness

NOT OK ROB!
The guy that's been here for 10 days thinks you should be banned from your game. Hand over those Dunes chips, the keys to your house and the hot dog roller.

We'll take it from here.

 

[AuburnSeth]

You are asking a guy who was literally there whether he is okay with how things played out.

If you are the only one who is confused by something, then the onus is on you to clarify the point of your confusion, not on any of us to guess whatever ambiguous shit you are confused about. Or if you already had an answer in mind, then were you not asking genuinely?

You are acting indistinguishably from someone who really wants Classifieds access

I‘m not really sure you’re meaning. maybe you think I’m post-padding?
but my original comment asking if someone was ok with checking the nuts was genuine, I was curious if they were ok with it and also possibly shaming them for suggesting that this was ok.

 

[AuburnSeth]

NOT OK ROB!
The guy that's been here for 10 days thinks you should be banned from your game. Hand over those Dunes chips, the keys to your house and the hot dog roller.

We'll take it from here.

i Guess you guys know each other and play together. But I am genuinely confused why either of you would think it would be ok.

 

[jpietrella]

i Guess you guys know each other and play together. But I am genuinely confused why either of you would think it would be ok.

That's because you can't read, apparently.

 

[upNdown]

clearly you’re trolling. It’s not ok to check the nuts. The only reasons are collusion, soft play, ignorance to hand strength or forgetfulness

I’d add another reason - that the hand was screwed up procedurally and even though everybody involved was good with the solution as it happened, the host (and also nut-holder) doesn’t want to take ALL the chips on a hand that feels flawed.
Or file it under soft play, I don’t give a crap.

 

[glynn]

i Guess you guys know each other and play together. But I am genuinely confused why either of you would think it would be ok.

If we were to pause the game every time something happened that might confuse you, we would never get through a hand of poker. I think you can get to 100 posts by the end of the day, lfg!!

Or file it under soft play, I don’t give a crap.

I'm on the line with the Weymouth Gaming Commission right now. Four detectives on the case. They are working in shifts.

 

[Madmizike]

Man I’ve got to find my way back into this game. I’ve got some serious FOMO right now…seriously.

 

[upNdown]

Man I’ve got to find my way back into this game. I’ve got some serious FOMO right now…seriously.

Come back! Feign illness next Friday!

 

[Taghkanic]

An exposed turn wrinkle in a private game:

Three-way on the flop. There is a check, a bet and a call. Initial checker hasn’t acted.

Dealer burns and turns prematurely.

The floor (host, not playing) is called.

Floor asks the initial checker whether they want to fold, call or raise the flop.

If they call, the exposed turn gets shuffled back, the checker acts, and a new turn gets re-dealt once the flop action is complete.

If they fold, the premature turn remains in place (no shuffling back in and re-deal).

This actually happened twice that night, and I thought it was a little odd.

Though the possibility of keeping the original turn may be appealing, I would have shuffled it back either way.

I have seen many prematurely exposed cards but don’t recall it being handled this way. Maybe I didn’t notice or rules have changed.

 

[JustinInMN]

An exposed turn wrinkle in a private game:

Three-way on the flop. There is a check, a bet and a call. Initial checker hasn’t acted.

Dealer burns and turns prematurely.

The floor (host, not playing) is called.

Floor asks the initial checker whether they want to fold, call or raise the flop.

If they call, the exposed turn gets shuffled back, the checker acts, and a new turn gets re-dealt once the flop action is complete.

If they fold, the premature turn remains in place (no shuffling back in and re-deal).

This actually happened twice that night, and I thought it was a little odd.

Though the possibility of keeping the original turn may be appealing, I would have shuffled it back either way.

I have seen many prematurely exposed cards but don’t recall it being handled this way. Maybe I didn’t notice or rules have changed.

This is just careless. Like good dealers will do this maybe 3-4 times a year, not twice in a night.

And your instinct is right, a premature card NEVER plays. While I get the appeal of letting the card stand if possible, you can't let one player make that decision. Your instinct is right, this should be shuffled back. Some rulesets burn and turn the river card as the turn and then reshuffle, but I know the trend is toward random is random and recreating the stub and doing a new random draw is the correct way.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Just wondering how this should have been handled. I did not like it.

The OP doesn't mention what is the correct ruling as defined in a rules book, although later comments do mention him not pursuing further because he wasn't sure if he was correct. Instead the question is "how this should have been handled".

And maybe I'm completely alone, but the proper rules as dictated in a book somewhere are not always the right way to handle something. If I go to a casino, I expect proper play/etiquette/rule enforcement. If I host a game of hold 'em with hold em only players and rules sticklers, I would uphold proper play/etiquette/rule enforcement. Same concept if I were hosting/playing nosebleed stakes (I don't).

At a HOME GAME where we are trying to have FUN, I think there's tons of wiggle room.

Example: We all hate exposed cards. Players hate even more getting a great card exposed and losing it. Home rule - in my game, if dealer misdeals or flashes a hole card, it's completely up to the player on whether or not they want to keep it. They have to decide then and there if they'll be keeping it. If not, per usual keep going, use the exposed as the burn, etc.

People imbibe. We've seen people toss in 2 $1s across the betting line and announce "ten dollars" after the fact. We don't resort to a rules book, we don't tell them the bet stands because they didn't announce beforehand, we don't chastise them. I say "put your damn $5s in and pay attention numnuts" and we move on. Because we're not worried about a dickhead angling because...it's a friendly home game.

We still use shuffle behind/ahead, we still use card cappers, we still institute a sense of safety and don't leave room open for impropriety - but we also have people announcing raises on the flop, cards unseen, by yelling "raise $20" from the bathroom.

There's room/need for texas hold em games with extreme structure and oversight, there's room/need for games with Scarney/2s are wild/take a gummy shot for every card you discard. You're missing out if you only subscribe/attend to one of those camps.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Good rules followed accordingly make games better and friendlier.

And if this were a tournament, @upNdown gets a warning and penalty for not raising with the nuts as last to act on the river.

Poor form for a cash game too, imo -- shades of soft-playing, regardless of intent.

This entire thread is people quoting/referencing a rules book, *yet* at the same time typing up a subjective opinion.

Surely you can see how others might see these as conflicting.

 

[Taghkanic]

This is just careless. Like good dealers will do this maybe 3-4 times a year, not twice in a night.

I’ve spoken to the host twice about this dealer.

In addition to two exposed turns in one game, he also said absolutely nothing when a player picked up the muck and very obviously started going through it to see what his opponents had on the previous hand.

I was livid and called it out, but felt I should never have to do that. The player trying to enforce the rules always somehow becomes the bad guy.

The host says that he will try not to use this dealer in the future but sometimes gets stuck (as he does prefer to have at least a two- and ideally a three-man dealer rotation).

 

[pltrgyst]

,,,, ignorance to hand strength,,,,

There's a lot of that in home games, particularly of the circus variety.

 

[glynn]

The host says that he will try not to use this dealer in the future but sometimes gets stuck (as he does prefer to have at least a two- and ideally a three-man dealer rotation).

Yo, the problem is the host. Terrible ruling, and the problematic dealer and player are symptoms of his terrible judgement and processes.

 

[Organista1]

Just playing devils advocate here but in a home game or any game for that matter, I don’t think I’d ever check nuts but there are times I’d wish I checked to see what my opponent was playing because I knew I wasn’t going to get them to call any river bet. At that point it would seem more beneficial to check for information than bet and get nothing. It’s something to think about but I completely understand the optics of collusion as well.