Ugly situation (2 Viewers)

[Taghkanic]

Curious what people think about this one…

* Private 2/5 game. A lot of cash is flying around.

* Player Z, who winds up very upset, is already stuck 2.5 buyins and has the shortest stack of the three.

* Players A and B are old friends who razz each other nonstop.

* Self-dealt game and the host is away from the table when the key dispute happens, and so doesn’t police it.

— A flops top pair, bad kicker

— B flops an open ender

— Z’s pocket pair is second to the board

* A & B start their usual razzing, and this escalates to discussing what the other may have.

* Z complains that they shouldn’t be talking like that three-way, as it may change the action. They temporarily shut up.

— B continues his tank then calls. A calls.

— Turn gives Z a set and B his straight.

* A bets, Z shoves, B tanks with the current nuts.

* A & B resume their speech plays. They both cover Z, who is visibly steaming.

* A & B discuss whether they would run it once or twice if he shoves over the top. (Note: In this game it can be run once for the main pot and twice for the side.) They agree to twice for the side pot and both get it in.

— Main pot is ~360BB, side pot is ~140 BB

— Neither runout improves anyone further, B scoops 500BB

* Z is furious. He says A’s speech play on the flop kept B in, leading to the cooler on the turn.

* Z leaves in a huff. Host returns asking WTF just happened.

Thoughts?

 

[JMC9389]

Z is right to be upset. A and B talking about a multi way hand they're both still in along with two other players is out of line to me.

 

[Eriks]

A and B should stfu when the pot is multiway. But it’s hard to do much about it now. It may or may not have influenced C’s (is that B?) call. Impossible to tell.

 

[ChipTalker]

A,B,Z C?? is there 3 or 4 players in?
Anyway keep your mouth shut until after the hand.
And you should not be able to run multiple times after a 3rd player is all in IMO it influences the action that affects the all in player. Yes I know it is just for the side pot but still it influences if a player gets involved or folds.

 

[grandmeme]

I'm confused about the action. Does Z jam the flop or the turn? I also agree that A and B should have shut up during a three-way pot. Other players should have also told them to zip it - Z shouldn't have to tell them twice to shut the f up.

 

[Taghkanic]

Mine:

1) Yes, Z is right about the table talk three-way. A and B shouldn’t have been talking on the flop like that.

2) Not sure about the discussion about running it twice for the side pot. The house rule allowing the main and side pots to be run different numbers of times is probably a bad idea.

3) As a practical matter, it happens that B is kind of a calling station, so he was likely to call the flop anyway. On the turn, he had the best hand, so the effect of the continued talk didn’t actually hurt Z, though it might have in a different scenario. Does not change the table talk rule.

4) FWIW, Z now says he won’t play again unless the game gets a dealer.

 

[Taghkanic]

A,B,Z C?? is there 3 or 4 players in?
Anyway keep your mouth shut until after the hand.
And you should not be able to run multiple times after a 3rd player is all in IMO it influences the action that affects the all in player. Yes I know it is just for the side pot but still it influences if a player gets involved or folds.

Fixed it. B & C are one player.

 

[Taghkanic]

I'm confused about the action. Does Z jam the flop or the turn? I also agree that A and B should have shut up during a three-way pot. Other players should have also told them to zip it - Z shouldn't have to tell them twice to shut the f up.

Z shoved his set on the turn. Sorry for the confusion, I accidentally posted before completing the write up and have been editing as fast as I can.

 

[Taghkanic]

Write up should be correct now.

Check bet table talk call call on flop

Check shove table talk call call on turn

 

[grandmeme]

Also, what kind of splashy 2/5 game doesn't have the money to hire a dealer???? You guys have like 10k on the table..... Spare a few hundred for the dealer.

 

[Taghkanic]

The bad house rule also adds a potential perveived collusion problem.

 

[JMC9389]

Also, what kind of splashy 2/5 game doesn't have the money to hire a dealer???? You guys have like 10k on the table..... Spare a few hundred for the dealer.

Agreed. Z is correct here. Not to say a dealer would have prevented this, but a dedicated dealer is strongly recommended for anything more than meetup stakes (0.25/0.50 $100 or $200 max initial buy in) due to the amount in play.

 

[Taghkanic]

Also, what kind of splashy 2/5 game doesn't have the money to hire a dealer???? You guys have like 10k on the table..... Spare a few hundred for the dealer.

Game has been running a while and used to be lower stakes. I don’t think it ever occurred to the host to hire a dealer.

 

[rustycheerio]

Game has been running a while and used to be lower stakes. I don’t think it ever occurred to the host to hire a dealer.

hiring doesn't necessarily mean hiring, they can work for tips so nothing out of your pocket.
it's just recommended if your a host, and playing, you tip a little extra.
if you do get. dealer, players, as long as they're not completely lost should know to tip, if they don't, tell them.

Z has right to be upset.
AB shouldn't talk about hand while another person in there. if it continues to be a problem consider booting them.

 

[ChipTalker]

A dealer that gets tips and does not play makes a legal game now illegal in some states, not sure about NY but does in NJ where I am located.
I would dwell more on better rules for the game which is on the host as well as enforcing no talking, also on the host. It is stated that it is well known that these 2 players talk during a hand even when others are involved. Cut it out or don't come back IMO. Unfortunately this situation was all created by a friendly game that has grown without tightening the rules. This is why it is so important to run a tight game, sometimes it seems stupid to enforce all rules in a home game but when you do it not only prevent this type of stuff but it also conditions the players to enforce it themselves for when the host steps away.

I don't think enforcing those rules would have changed the outcome here but it would have prevented hard feelings and just turned it into a "that's poker" situation.

 

[Taghkanic]

Yes, in the one game with a dealer I play in, he works just for tips. Actually they have two dealers who rotate over the course of the night.

I imagine that this adds extra layers of complication for the host. Presumably It means having to have a roster of dealers, not just players, since sometimes your go-to guy will be sick, or celebrating a birthday, etc.

And then what happens on nights when the game doesn’t go off? I know sometimes when I host I don’t know sure if we have enough until around noon on game day. To retain the dealer long-term, does the host have to compensate him for late cancellations?

 

[rustycheerio]

A dealer that gets tips and does not play makes a legal game now illegal in some states, not sure about NY but does in NJ where I am located.

from my understanding legal vs illegal means not taking a rake vs taking a rake.
i don't think it has to do with tipping a dealer. i could be wrong though.

depending on how often you run, if it's once a week you'll likely need one permanent and a second one to fill in on days they can't make it.

 

[ChipTalker]

from my understanding legal vs illegal means not taking a rake vs taking a rake.
i don't think it has to do with tipping a dealer. i could be wrong though.

depending on how often you run, if it's once a week you'll likely need one permanent and a second one to fill in on days they can't make it.

In NJ a dealer that gets tips and or a dealer that is not playing in the game is illegal, in the US the laws are state by state.

 

[rustycheerio]

In NJ a dealer that gets tips and or a dealer that is not playing in the game is illegal, in the US the laws are state by state.

that makes more sense. some states might crack down more then others, etc. regardless you'd have to be very unlucky to hunted for a home game.

i forgot to mention, i know if people who have dealt home games for 24 hours with short breaks. obviously their hourly was insane, but regarding two dealers, it's mostly up to the host. you probably need just one good dealer for a full night or day.

 

[Taghkanic]

For my own game, I can’t see myself being able to arrange for a dealer consistently, and have never raked, to keep things legal.

But maybe at least having the host deal (no tips) is a middle ground, assuming everyone trusts the host. Would be a huge PITA for me personally. And of course like most humans I sometimes need to pee.

 

[ChipTalker]

agreed It is very rarely enforced in any state although I have seen a few horrors stories posted here. Just pointing out that as stated a dealer may complicate things a lot from legalities to coordination ... the desired outcome here is not necessarily resolved by a dealer but really more resolved by the host and the rules.

 

[rustycheerio]

For my own game, I can’t see myself being able to arrange for a dealer consistently, and have never raked, to keep things legal.

But maybe at least having the host deal (no tips) is a middle ground, assuming everyone trusts the host. Would be a huge PITA for me personally. And of course like most humans I sometimes need to pee.

for the better, rakefree.
people should have trust in the host if they're showing up for the game.

like @ChipTalker stated though, something this specific can't be completely avoided.
having someone run the game with full
knowledge of rules, etc should help (mostly) with preventing these things though.

 

[Taghkanic]

for the better, rakefree.
people should have trust in the host if they're showing up for the game.

like @ChipTalker stated though, something this specific can't be completely avoided.
having someone run the game with full
knowledge of rules, etc should help (mostly) with preventing these things though.

In this case, I think everyone at the table knew the rules. It was more a case of the two buddies being unable to restrain themselves from their usual chatter, with other players not wanting to take on the role of the host, policing a hand they weren’t in.

It was kind of a perfect storm in that the player who got coolered was already stuck and steaming, plus the two players who he was against have diarrhea of the mouth, PLUS the host was on a bathroom break.

With hope everyone learned a lesson, and they won’t do it again, and everything won’t come together again that way more than once a year. But I’m going to agitate at least for a run once multi-way rule change.

P.S. Unfortunately in my experience, this can happen, even in private games with dealers or casinos. I was in a tournament once at Rivers were player was regularly commenting on action even when he wasn’t in the hand. The dealers meekly did nothing about it because the talker was a regular in who tipped them a lot in cash games.

It’s often left to the players to speak up about this stuff, and floor rulings can be very subjective based on who is involved.

 

[Leonard]

- Talking during a hand should be strongly discouraged. This is the main point, IMO
- No matter what you do, poker players get pissed off. It's part of the game, especially when you lose money. In this case the main reason Player Z lost was that he had a losing set. "You rarely lose a small hand with a set"
- I would never have a dedicated dealer at my home game. I think it just makes the game more like an underground game and less like a home game. Not sure about the law in Texas, but right now that seems to vary county by county and depending on the whims of the local DA.

 

[Machine]

discussing if you are willing to run it twice before the action is blatantly cheating imo. I will say 'I always run it twice' but not while action is pending.

Depends on the conversation, A and B are in the hand, there is valid shit talk that's not considered cheating.

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

-
- I would never have a dedicated dealer at my home game. I think it just makes the game more like an underground game and less like a home game.

Completely agree. Biggest reason is it is a chance for a tight knit group of long time friends to be together and blow off steam as well. Knowing that what is said at the table stays at the table is a great feeling.

 

[Budha]

Yes, in the one game with a dealer I play in, he works just for tips. Actually they have two dealers who rotate over the course of the night.

I imagine that this adds extra layers of complication for the host. Presumably It means having to have a roster of dealers, not just players, since sometimes your go-to guy will be sick, or celebrating a birthday, etc.

And then what happens on nights when the game doesn’t go off? I know sometimes when I host I don’t know sure if we have enough until around noon on game day. To retain the dealer long-term, does the host have to compensate him for late cancellations?

To me, hiring a dealer changes the dynamic of the game from a friendly game to something different- just my opinion.

I don’t think a dealer solves the issue at hand TBH. A game can still be a friendly game, even at higher stakes. But the table talk during a hand, especially a big hand, needs to stop. IMO, the table should have handled the situation once player “z” asked them to stop. You don’t need a dealer or the host to speak up when something is clearly out of line - the whole table should have said something.