I wouldn't say the room and the player are actively colluding because I always underestimate how stupid people can be, and this could always just be incompetence. I didn't listen to the whole video after 9ish mins, is this a regular guy that they perhaps liked and wanted to keep happy? I've seen idiot dealers that just want their day to be done, so maybe enabling is a good word in your poll. I dunno, fuck this player.
Either way its #1 bullshit and I would raise quite a stink. It wouldn't matter, but I would be unhappy and tell my poker buddies about this mook.
That place wouldn't get any more of my business until I knew that both the dealer and floor have been relieved of their duties. The fact that the angler verbalized his intent to check dark makes some collusion concerns (between the player and dealer at least, maybe even the floor) a bit more likely to me. If verbal actions aren't binding, then the entire game would devolve instantly and make Kassouf look like a freaking saint in comparison.
This is pure insanity to me. I don’t know how you could possibly have a house rule that is so clearly at odds with the rest of the world. But I also don’t know how you could ask to bet after it’s checked around, how the dealer could allow it and how the floor could allow it.
I’m not calling the caller a liar, but the most reasonable explanation here is that it didn’t happen as the caller described.
Second most likely is shameless collusion between the house, the dealer, and a reg.
See because they never addressed the obvious question to me - if the card changed the action, then the villain should have been able to bet right then; first action was on him - he was in the HJ; hero was in the CO.
But since he checked dark, even if the card changed the action, he still checked. Then the hero checked. Hand over. You can’t bet after it’s checked around.
See because they never addressed the obvious question to me - if the card changed the action, then the villain should have been able to bet right then; first action was on him - he was in the HJ; hero was in the CO.
But since he checked dark, even if the card changed the action, he still checked. Then the hero checked. Hand over. You can’t bet after it’s checked around.
I think the argument they're trying to rest on is that checking dark is a sort of out-of-turn action, and the next card amounts to a change in the action in the sense that would allow someone to reconsider in a true situation with out-of-turn action. That's what I read into the house's words (as described by the caller).
Obviously this is pure nonsense because if a dark check is just an out-of-turn action that gets reset as soon as the "action changes" with the fall of the next card, there is no such thing as a dark check (or a dark bet for that matter*). It's just a sort of dishonest wordplay to try to get your opponent to give up information. And the employees have to know this if they have any sense.
The next question, of course: Why would the house allow this? It's simpler and cleaner to hold dark checks to be binding action just like anything else. My best guess would be that the regs in this cardroom insisted on this interpretation and got their way. Another example of why letting regs run roughshod over everything is a recipe to burn down your own cardroom.
If dark checks get to reconsider when "the action changes," then so do dark bets. Imagine how horrible this would be.
I think the argument they're trying to rest on is that checking dark is a sort of out-of-turn action, and the next card amounts to a change in the action in the sense that would allow someone to reconsider in a true situation with out-of-turn action. That's what I read into the house's words (as described by the caller).
Obviously this is pure nonsense because if a dark check is just an out-of-turn action that gets reset as soon as the "action changes" with the fall of the next card, there is no such thing as a dark check (or a dark bet for that matter*). It's just a sort of dishonest wordplay to try to get your opponent to give up information. And the employees have to know this if they have any sense.
The next question, of course: Why would the house allow this? It's simpler and cleaner to hold dark checks to be binding action just like anything else. My best guess would be that the regs in this cardroom insisted on this interpretation and got their way. Another example of why letting regs run roughshod over everything is a recipe to burn down your own cardroom.
If dark checks get to reconsider when "the action changes," then so do dark bets. Imagine how horrible this would be.
Mmmm I can see them making that argument but it falls flat, right? Out of turn actions are binding if the action doesn't change their required bet (forget the exact wording). Like, if I bet $30 out of turn, and someone before me bets $75 my bet no longer stands. If the first player checks, my bet stands. The card falling is expected and nothing has changed about the action. No change in the action. Silliness.
Mmmm I can see them making that argument but it falls flat, right? Out of turn actions are binding if the action doesn't change their required bet (forget the exact wording). Like, if I bet $30 out of turn, and someone before me bets $75 my bet no longer stands. If the first player checks, my bet stands. The card falling is expected and nothing has changed about the action. No change in the action. Silliness.
Oh, I agree 100% that this argument falls flat. It makes no logical sense and is obviously not in the interest of fairness to allow it to happen.
It only "works" because their dealer and floorperson have no sense, or my suspicion, that they're doing it on purpose to enable their regs to cheat people (even if they've convinced themselves it's not really cheating or whatever).
Mmmm I can see them making that argument but it falls flat, right? Out of turn actions are binding if the action doesn't change their required bet (forget the exact wording). Like, if I bet $30 out of turn, and someone before me bets $75 my bet no longer stands. If the first player checks, my bet stands. The card falling is expected and nothing has changed about the action. No change in the action. Silliness.
Are people missing my point?
Let’s say the rule is valid.
After the turn, HJ says “I check dark.”
Turn card somehow changes the action, so his dark check is no longer binding. But he’s acting first! RIGHT NOW is when he’d have to make his bet. He didn’t. Now it’s HJ’s turn. He checks. Hand is over.
Are the dealer and the floor saying that the hero acted out of action by checking (under the assumption that the dark check was binding?)
Anyway, I blame the dealer bigly, even if the ridiculous rule is valid. Everytime I’ve ever seen a dark check, the dealer has always acknowledged it and then told the next person that the action was on them. There was no discussion in the video whether or not that happened. But the dealer should have indicated who had the action, one way or the other, in this situation.
This is wild. If a card changes the action then Checking Dark just moves you from out of position to in position. Why wouldn’t you do that every hand? I’m kind of surprised that none of the other players chimed in.
Are people missing my point?
Let’s say the rule is valid.
After the turn, HJ says “I check dark.”
Turn card somehow changes the action, so his dark check is no longer binding. But he’s acting first! RIGHT NOW is when he’d have to make his bet. He didn’t. Now it’s HJ’s turn. He checks. Hand is over.
I think the premise here would be that Villain acted out of turn by checking dark, then a card fall, and now it's Villain's actual turn to go first. It's effectively like he didn't say he checks dark. It turns that declaration into a non-binding form of wordplay.
But Hero doesn't know that because he's accustomed to sane rules, so he acts. Now HERO'S action is an out-of-turn action, and it's back on Villain to make the proper first action.
That's the only way I can make sense of it. Obviously I hard disagree. I think this place needs a visit from the gaming commission.
Are people missing my point?
Let’s say the rule is valid.
After the turn, HJ says “I check dark.”
Turn card somehow changes the action, so his dark check is no longer binding. But he’s acting first! RIGHT NOW is when he’d have to make his bet. He didn’t. Now it’s HJ’s turn. He checks. Hand is over.
Are the dealer and the floor saying that the hero acted out of action by checking (under the assumption that the dark check was binding?)
Anyway, I blame the dealer bigly, even if the ridiculous rule is valid. Everytime I’ve ever seen a dark check, the dealer has always acknowledged it and then told the next person that the action was on them. There was no discussion in the video whether or not that happened. But the dealer should have indicated who had the action, one way or the other, in this situation.
No one is missing your point, but you saying "everyone here sucks" in a thread about angling is so expected its like white noise.
No. If we are assuming the rule is valid: if he says check dark, then card comes, then its his turn to act. There is no reason he should lose that action. "he didn't" is odd because we don't know exactly how long the players/dealers sat waiting for that action. Its all bullshit, but the out-of-turn check doesn't invalidate angler's chance to bet in this bizarro world.
The way it looks to me is that it's such obvious bullshit that there's no way it's an honest mistake.
Even if they enacted this rule as I've described it 100% in good faith, believing it was right, it has to have become obvious that it's playing out in the real world very differently: as a way for their regs who know about the rule to take advantage of players who are accustomed to the standard rules around checking dark.
And they see this happening and continue to allow it anyway. Probably due to pressure from or undue deference toward regs.
Some cardrooms just aren't meant to survive in the long run.
No one is missing your point, but you saying "everyone here sucks" in a thread about angling is so expected its like white noise.
No. If we are assuming the rule is valid: if he says check dark, then card comes, then its his turn to act. There is no reason he should lose that action. "he didn't" is odd because we don't know exactly how long the players/dealers sat waiting for that action. Its all bullshit, but the out-of-turn check doesn't invalidate angler's chance to bet in this bizarro world.
So you don’t think that in an irregular situation like this, the dealer should indicate whose action it is?
Also I never said everybody here sucks. I was asking a genuine question. Chill out.
So you don’t think that in an irregular situation like this, the dealer should indicate whose action it is?
Also I never said everybody here sucks. I was asking a genuine question. Chill out.
I am very chill. Your first line is a strawman, I didn't say that.
The way you laid out the action, you said he had to act "RIGHT NOW" or his action is lost, I'm simply saying there's no reason why action moved past him if we're assuming BS rule is valid. We agree the rule is bullshit and the floor/dealer sucks at best, corrupt at worst.
So you don’t think that in an irregular situation like this, the dealer should indicate whose action it is?
Also I never said everybody here sucks. I was asking a genuine question. Chill out.
That would be wise, but I am pretty sure I've seen dealers not say anything and just let the table roll with the action like any other. It's pretty common for people to check dark without any ridiculous rulings in most places.
In this situation, the employees seem to be at least partly in on it, so it makes sense the dealer wouldn't clarify the action, since the point of the angle is to trick the unknowing player into divulging information. If dealer announced it was Hero's action, the house can no longer argue this weird out-of-turn ruling, since it has been made clear Villain took his action already.
I am very chill. Your first line is a strawman, I didn't say that.
The way you laid out the action, you said he had to act "RIGHT NOW" or his action is lost, I'm simply saying there's no reason why action moved past him if we're assuming BS rule is valid. We agree the rule is bullshit and the floor/dealer sucks at best, corrupt at worst.
I'm so convinced that the house is helping regs cheat that if I were Hero here, I would write a long, open letter to the gaming commission about it.
If they have the rule as I've described it (dark check = out-of-turn action), then whenever someone claims to check dark, the dealer should have to clarify that checking dark isn't binding, and it will be Villain's turn as usual when action commences after the next card.
In other words, they should do the same thing any half-decent house would do in response to regs doing something weird/scummy that goes against the fairness of the game. Shut it down. Make it clear you don't tolerate that. Protect new players from being angled.
The fact that they choose not to do this and instead stay quiet until the trap is sprung says a lot.
This is Hollywood Casino Aurora in Illinois, by the way.
