Tourney What tilts you?

Beakertwang

Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
May 22, 2018
Messages
2,223
Reaction score
2,078
Location
Iowa
Watching players build huge stacks by limp calling garbage hands OOP and nailing flops tilts me, especially when they get all my chips in the process. :mad:

I played in tonight's regular tourney at the local casino. :D
 

MattyMatt

Pair
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
133
Reaction score
69
Location
New York
And that is the meat of the argument -- A was wrong, but A was wrong simply because he did not show first. B only made the problem worse by showing, but nothing bad would have happened had he not shown (which has been the the very premise of my position all along -- nothing bad comes of acting in turn, but bad things can happen if you don't act in turn).

If A shows first, there is no issue.
If B waits for A to show first, there is no issue.
If A delays, and B waits for him to eventually show, there is no issue.
It is only when A delays, and B shows prematurely, that there becomes an issue.

I can't explain it any clearer than that.
You've explained clearly enough throughout. So to be clear I reiterate: You've been perfectly clear. Now,

------------------- first ----------------

I don't think your reasoning above is logical: The only thing B did was enable A to make his mistake. That doesn't make B wrong however.

------------------- 2nd ----------------

You wrote:

Also without looking up the specific wording.....

Rules state a predetermined order (based on parameters) in which players are expected to act
Like I said before; pick your poison - you either point to the rules or you don't.


TDA:

"In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled or discarded, "

It clearly allows for cards to be spontaneously tabled. Basic English and reasoning even clearly implies it is the first thing to evaluate, hence the "if" in the statement. Did cards get tabled spontaneously? No?... then; "the TD may enforce an order of show."

"may" = "optional", as opposed to for example the word "must". So if the rules unequivocally stated a predetermined order it would have been written as follows for example: "In a non all-in showdown cards must be tabled according to the following order of show:"


RROP:

"If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay."

No need to write "holding a probable winner" if everyone has to show in sequence. To me it clearly implies showing out of order is not just allowed but even encouraged to speed up the game. You're at a table, betting has concluded, there are six players left - last player shows absolute nuts right away... done. No need to wait for five other numbnuts to lollygag their cards face-up. This is done in many card rooms as far as I can tell (I could be wrong about that of course) and I don't think it would be done in as many if the rules didn't allow for it.

So, regarding the rules:

a) showing "out of turn" is allowed, and more importantly
b) showing "out of turn" is apparently encouraged

With those two points in mind it is fairly impossible to say that B was wrong. All he did was enable A to make a mistake. That's the point I'm trying to make.

If you can't understand it, I guess I'm an asshole. So be it.
No, what makes you a jerk is assuming that I don't understand what you're saying when I disagree with you. You making a statement doesn't make it a universal truth that people have to agree with lest they are intellectually incapable of comprehending it.

I understand what you're saying.
I disagree that the rules are on your side.
I have a different preference.

Capiche?
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
17,078
Reaction score
19,206
Location
Atlanta
You've explained clearly enough throughout. So to be clear I reiterate: You've been perfectly clear. Now,

------------------- first ----------------

I don't think your reasoning above is logical: The only thing B did was enable A to make his mistake. That doesn't make B wrong however.

------------------- 2nd ----------------

You wrote:



Like I said before; pick your poison - you either point to the rules or you don't.


TDA:

"In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled or discarded, "

It clearly allows for cards to be spontaneously tabled. Basic English and reasoning even clearly implies it is the first thing to evaluate, hence the "if" in the statement. Did cards get tabled spontaneously? No?... then; "the TD may enforce an order of show."

"may" = "optional", as opposed to for example the word "must". So if the rules unequivocally stated a predetermined order it would have been written as follows for example: "In a non all-in showdown cards must be tabled according to the following order of show:"


RROP:

"If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay."

No need to write "holding a probable winner" if everyone has to show in sequence. To me it clearly implies showing out of order is not just allowed but even encouraged to speed up the game. You're at a table, betting has concluded, there are six players left - last player shows absolute nuts right away... done. No need to wait for five other numbnuts to lollygag their cards face-up. This is done in many card rooms as far as I can tell (I could be wrong about that of course) and I don't think it would be done in as many if the rules didn't allow for it.

So, regarding the rules:

a) showing "out of turn" is allowed, and more importantly
b) showing "out of turn" is apparently encouraged

With those two points in mind it is fairly impossible to say that B was wrong. All he did was enable A to make a mistake. That's the point I'm trying to make.



No, what makes you a jerk is assuming that I don't understand what you're saying when I disagree with you. You making a statement doesn't make it a universal truth that people have to agree with lest they are intellectually incapable of comprehending it.

I understand what you're saying.
I disagree that the rules are on your side.
I have a different preference.

Capiche?
I understand what you're saying.
I disagree that the rules are on your side.
I have a different preference.

Capiche?
 

longflop

3 of a Kind
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
714
Reaction score
761
Location
Murrlynn
I had a funny event at the last tournament I was in. Didn't tilt me but only because of how it played out.

A couple levels in it is my deal and as I follow the action I see a player who for some reason has placed his hand on the rail. I'm new at the game so I say to the man, "Sir, I hate to be that guy but would you mind putting your cards on the table so everyone knows you are in the hand". He politely complies. I then notice he has no chips in front of him. I say "Sir, do you have any chips?". He responds, "Yes, they are on my lap". Maintaining my composure, I then respond, "Sir, would you mind putting your chips on the table so all of us can see them?" He picks a rack up off his lap and puts it on the table. I then say, "I know you probably hate me by now, but do you mind taking the chips out of the rack while you are playing? This is customary". He complies but at this point I know he hates me forever. Keep in mind HE IS STILL IN THE HAND. In the midst of this, he ends up all in and busts. IN THE SAME HAND.

As the story was retold later in the night, it went down "Sir, can you put you cards on the table? Sir, can you put your chips on the table? Sir, can you leave the table?"
dear god, please tell me that wasn't my game....
 

Taghkanic

Flush
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
647
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
Watching players build huge stacks by limp calling garbage hands OOP and nailing flops tilts me, especially when they get all my chips in the process. :mad:
I played in a private tournament not so long ago, and after busting around 16th out of maybe 90 players, got convinced to join a 1/2 game which was going on in another room. I should have known the game would be goofy when I saw the dice chips, the wide wooden table, that they were playing 10-handed, and that most players were buying in for as little as $40-$60.

I bought in for $150, played TAG, and tripled up within an hour. But this success then triggered the fish to attack the shark as a school, and it became impossible to see any flop less than 5-6 handed, even with a sizeable $12-$15 raise preflop. (If someone straddled, the preflop bets would often be more like $20, or 1/3 of the average stack.)

Once we were there, of course multiple players now had odds to go all in, or call an all-in, based on stack sizes and pot odds. (Pot on the flop would be $60-$90, with 5-6 players now having less than half or even just 1/3 of that behind.)

So the game devolved into pure BINGO. Weird rivered two pairs, gutshot straight draws getting there, one-card flushes winning left and right.

This totally tilted me, and my giant stack got steadily redistributed back. I lost with hands like AQs flopping two pair, getting called down by a gutshot, and countless other suckouts. When I made conversation with some of my adversaries to find out what their thinking had been, one of the players shouted, “NO POKER TALK! WE DON’T TALK STRATEGY HERE!” I decided to leave, since there seemed to be little to do in this scenario except to hope to make the nuts, or keep buying back in until I happened to get up big again (then immediately dash—I’d have had no trouble hitting and running with this gang, and should have earlier).

A couple of LAGs and a couple of passive, station-y fish at a table? Great. Manageable. Usually profitable, within the limits of variance. But nine short-stackers? Forget it. There is little skill edge to be had.
 
Last edited:

Beakertwang

Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
May 22, 2018
Messages
2,223
Reaction score
2,078
Location
Iowa
I played in a private tournament not so long ago, and after busting around 16th out of maybe 90 players, got convinced to join a 1/2 game which was going on in another room. I should have known the game would be goofy when I saw the dice chips, the wide wooden table, that they were playing 10-handed, and that most players were buying in for as little as $40-$60.

I bought in for $150, played TAG, and tripled up within an hour. But this success then triggered the fish to attack the shark as a school, and it became impossible to see any flop less than 5-6 handed, even with a sizeable $12-$15 raise preflop. (If someone straddled, the preflop bets would often be more like $20, or 1/3 of the average stack.)

Once we were there, of course multiple players now had odds to go all in, or call an all-in, based on stack sizes and pot odds. (Pot on the flop would be $60-$90, with 5-6 players now having less than half or even just 1/3 of that behind.)

So the game devolved into pure BINGO. Weird rivered two pairs, gutshot straight draws getting there, one-card flushes winning left and right.

This totally tilted me, and my giant stack got steadily redistributed back. I lost with hands like AQs flopping two pair, getting called down by a gutshot, and countless other suckouts. When I made conversation with some of my adversaries to find out what their thinking had been, one of the players shouted, “NO POKER TALK! WE DON’T TALK STRATEGY HERE!” I decided to leave, since there seemed to be little to do in this scenario except to hope to make the nuts, or keep buying back in until I happened to get up big again (then immediately dash—I’d have had no trouble hitting and running with this gang, and should have earlier).

A couple of LAGs and a couple of passive, station-y fish at a table? Great. Manageable. Usually profitable, within the limits of variance. But nine short-stackers? Forget it. There is little skill edge to be had.
One guy in particular was driving me nuts, mostly because I lost two big hands to him. He was stupidly loose passive pre flop, limp calling with just about anything. I watched him flop the nut straight after calling a raise with 47o and get paid (not against me). I play really tight in these tourneys, and I raised tin 5x with KK in middle position. He called from the small blind with 87o. Flop came 568, and he check raised all in and caught the 4 on the turn. Finally busted me when I raised 3x with JQs, he limp called from early position. Flop was J72 and I shoved the rest of my stack. He showed J7o. I can barely bring myself to limp with those hands, let alone call OOP. If it’s limped to my BB, I feel like folding anyway! Maybe I need to loosen up. :)
 

Gobbs

Two Pair
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
278
Reaction score
231
Location
Atlanta
You're clever.
This whole situation reminds me of something my dad taught me years ago.

Two guys were driving down the road. There was a massive pothole ahead. The first guy went around it by crossing the middle line. The second guy didn’t want to break any traffic laws and hit it head on.

Now, the question is, who would you rather be: the guy who was pulled over by a cop for crossing the yellow line but who did not get ticketed because he used good judgment and applied safety rules appropriately or the guy who didn’t get pulled over by the cop because he technically followed the laws 100 percent correctly, but didn’t consider the spirit of the law and now has to pay $500 on car repairs?

I’d rather be the guy who waited to show his hand, er, I mean the guy who went around the pothole every time.
 

MattyMatt

Pair
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
133
Reaction score
69
Location
New York
This whole situation reminds me of something my dad taught me years ago.

Two guys were driving down the road. There was a massive pothole ahead. The first guy went around it by crossing the middle line. The second guy didn’t want to break any traffic laws and hit it head on.

Now, the question is, who would you rather be: the guy who was pulled over by a cop for crossing the yellow line but who did not get ticketed because he used good judgment and applied safety rules appropriately or the guy who didn’t get pulled over by the cop because he technically followed the laws 100 percent correctly, but didn’t consider the spirit of the law and now has to pay $500 on car repairs?

I’d rather be the guy who waited to show his hand, er, I mean the guy who went around the pothole every time.
We all have our preferences, and if I was playing with you and you were behind me and called and waited for me to show then of course I'd show. Without delay, as I usually do. So, I don't really see the point of you writing that ('incorrect') analogy or quoting the end of my exchange with BG. If it's about preference then 'whatever'.

If it's about the reasoning behind what I've written so far then it would have been better to address what I wrote here instead (which incidentally also puts the finger on why your analogy isn't 'working').
 

Gobbs

Two Pair
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
278
Reaction score
231
Location
Atlanta
If it's about the reasoning behind what I've written so far then it would have been better to address what I wrote here instead (which incidentally also puts the finger on why your analogy isn't 'working').
I was addressing everything you wrote, but I couldn’t quote all the times you’ve repeated yourself (albeit, with flair). That would be why I started with “The whole situation...”

The fact that you don’t understand how the analogy is extremely applicable speaks volumes. Therefore, I regret to inform you that I can no longer try to help you to understand. Anything else I contribute would simply be repetitive and met with the same responses.
 

MattyMatt

Pair
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
133
Reaction score
69
Location
New York
I was addressing everything you wrote, but I couldn’t quote all the times you’ve repeated yourself (albeit, with flair). That would be why I started with “The whole situation...”
Fair enough. Some people don't read an exchange between others in its completion and miss out on what has been said.

The fact that you don’t understand how the analogy is extremely applicable speaks volumes.
Here's what your analogy misses:

1. The two drivers aren't "dependent" on each other's actions. You simply stated that the two acted independently of each other. BG's argument (and presumably yours as well) hinges upon one action influencing the other. Your analogy fails here.

2. In your example what you would do in the analogy-world would be breaking the rules, and you equate that to what you would do in real life which would NOT be breaking the rules.

Do I need to go on here, or? You probably don't really care. Let's see if you do:

Therefore, I regret to inform you that I can no longer try to help you to understand.
See, there's that asshole attitude again.
 

Chris Manzoni

Two Pair
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
344
Reaction score
679
Location
Burbank, CA
Showing cards in turn, out of turn, whatever. Way down the list of what matters to me. That's not to say I don't have a less than important thing that tilts me - I forgot about one other behavior that grinds my gears; when a player has a monster and hollywoods forever and then raises/shoves.

I tilt especially hard in tournaments against short stacked players who do this pre-flop because I almost always decide ahead of time if I am calling a shove from a short stack when I open. There are few things more irritating than a bad actor hemming and hawing and then sputtering out "Oh jeez I guess I'm all in" - dude, I've already decided ahead of time if I'm calling or folding to your jam; all your histrionics make no difference to me. STOP WASTNG TIME.

Yeah, I guess this relates directly to my monster pet peeve about stalling.
 

Gobbs

Two Pair
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
278
Reaction score
231
Location
Atlanta
Here's what your analogy misses:

1. The two drivers aren't "dependent" on each other's actions. You simply stated that the two acted independently of each other. BG's argument (and presumably yours as well) hinges upon one action influencing the other. Your analogy fails here.

2. In your example what you would do in the analogy-world would be breaking the rules, and you equate that to what you would do in real life which would NOT be breaking the rules.
I can’t believe I’m going to try this one more time...

Here is what you missed in the analogy:

1. The two drivers represent the same player acting two different ways in the same situation, not two different players. One got screwed, the other didn’t, directly dependent on his actions.

2. In the analogy, neither driver broke a rule, but you missed the point. Call it laws, rules, guidelines, standards, or whatever you like, it’s not the point. The point was that one driver used common sense and swerved (didn’t show) and suffered no ill effects. The other driver didn’t use common sense (showed) and suffered.

However, to take it one step further, the point isn’t even the minute details you (incorrectly) attacked, but the moral of the story. Would you rather be right and suffer or be perceived as doing something wrong (but not wrong) and not suffer?
 
Top Bottom