Tourney What tilts you? (2 Viewers)

[toynoob]

What if I want to check raise river card with the nuts? Then the villian checks, I'm getting a penalty for "soft play"?

 

[ChaosRock]

What if I want to check raise river card with the nuts? Then the villian checks, I'm getting a penalty for "soft play"?

No. Only if you check back (or flat a bet) with the nuts closing the action.

 

[WedgeRock]

I think he's saying he is first to act and his hand is the nuts. He intends to check-raise and so starts by checking and his heads up opponent checks back, eviscerating his opportunity to check raise.

[DELETED]

Edit: @ChaosRock is correct, it only applies to being last to act.

 

[BGinGA]

Not true. Only applies if closing the action.

 

[toynoob]

No. Only if you check back (or flat a bet) with the nuts closing the action.

Copy that, thanks

 

[bsdunbar1]

• House rules that penalize players for not betting or raising with the nuts on the river (or in any way attempt to dictate actions that are supposed to be the player's choice)

Sure a lot of conversation on this. Maybe my group is just weird but this is another thing we have never once dealt with in 13 years. Yeah maybe a time or two someone had the nuts without knowing it & called/checked the river, but the worst they would have got in my game is someone saying "You dumbass why didn't you bet/raise?"
Certainly not anything my group needs a rule or penalty for.

 

[MrCatPants]

It's more getting tilted about why someone is getting tilted. Someone new to a game insisting what the ruling should be on something when the ruling is based on an established rule set.

"EVERYONE KNOWS you do X."

Yeah...everyone except Robert's Rules of Poker and most casino poker rooms.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Sure a lot of conversation on this. Maybe my group is just weird but this is another thing we have never once dealt with in 13 years. Yeah maybe a time or two someone had the nuts without knowing it & called/checked the river, but the worst they would have got in my game is someone saying "You dumbass why didn't you bet/raise?"
Certainly not anything my group needs a rule or penalty for.

Like any home game, the rules need to be followed, but enforcement does not need to be draconian. "You dumbass" is effectively a verbal warning, or a penalty of humiliation. I would say that is following the rules. If one player was called a dumbass 5 times when soft-playing (even accidentally) the same player in a tournament your players would notice and eyebrows would be raised.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Oh, I forgot one big one: players who proclaim "MISDEAL!" and toss their cards in the middle when any kind of dealing irregularity happens, even if it's fixable. Of course, this induces other players to the same, essentially forcing the host to treat it as a misdeal.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

Wow, this thread has been a great way to get a running list for a basic "Don't do this in my game" list lol. All the following are tilt-tastic to me:

Deliberate slow play tilts me. Especially in a tournament with fast levels, where I'm short.

People grabbing change out of the pot before action is closed

People that don't follow the established rules of poker.

People who call and say they'll be 5 minutes late then ask to be posted and folded only to show up 30 minutes late....with a damn coffee in their hand..

Also a couple more will consistently splash the pot

Digging in the muck to show what you folded and rabbit hunting.

Seeing players telling another player how they should play their hand bugs me.

Advice to players facing an all in

Unorganized or haphazard stack sizes, especially when your big chips are in the back. Don't be a Torelli!

Having someone deal the flop, the turn card to the right of the flop, then the river to the left of the flop.

Counting out chips by cutting them 1 or 2 at a time.

think basic rules or etiquette are stupid and say stuff like "just let us play. This isn't a casino!"

Oh, I forgot one big one: players who proclaim "MISDEAL!" and toss their cards in the middle when any kind of dealing irregularity happens, even if it's fixable. Of course, this induces other players to the same, essentially forcing the host to treat it as a misdeal.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I also want to add to the tilts me list...

People that think "off the deck" is the same as an ashtray. I'm a firefighter that battles 2-4 fires each year caused by improperly discarded cigarettes. I know for a fact that fires can and do happen because of poorly discarded cigarettes. Burning my house down is bad enough... burning it down while I'm in a hand makes you asshole supreme.

Also, I set out an ashtray every game, even though I dont smoke. If it gets full, I'll empty it for you, just let me know. Otherwise, there are an abundance of empty cans and bottles at each game. I'll gladly skip recycling one bottle to avoid the redneck litter-lawn look.

 

[PlaidDragon]

Burning my house down is bad enough... burning it down while I'm in a hand makes you asshole supreme.

Profound!

This is especially true if it costs you the hand. If one has the nuts, insist on continuing the hand despite the flames.

 

[Highli99]

I believe this was once an accepted rule, and was enforced for WSOP events. As such, it is more than a "house rule".

I don't like it, but I understand why it existed*.

*It may or may not still exist for WSOP events. I think my chances of playing in a WSOP event this year are near zero, so I haven't read them lately.

I got a verbal warning for this at the first hand of my first WSOP event. I had JQ and flopped AK10 for the straight. Turn was a J meaning 4 to a straight. Based on betting pattern I was certain we were chopping and my addrenine was rushing and my only goal was “don’t bust in the first hand” so I called a 1/2 pot river bet, chopped the pot as expected and got the verbal warning. Oh well.

 

[derekdd23]

Reading this thread!

I really need to stop, its causing PTSD

 

[WedgeRock]

Not true. Only applies if closing the action.

So as not to confuse the issue, I think @ChaosRock had it right and @BGinGA properly corrected my mis-statement.

I'll edit my post so my misinformation isn't out there.

 

[JustinInMN]

Profound!

This is especially true if it costs you the hand. If one has the nuts, insist on continuing the hand despite the flames.

Then you get a penalty for not betting the nuts.

TD: Why didn't you bet the straight?
You: I ran out of the burning building with everyone
TD: One round on the rail.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Profound!

This is especially true if it costs you the hand. If one has the nuts, insist on continuing the hand despite the flames.

Villian: I think you have the nuts
Hero: Why
Villian: The house is burning and you won't fold.
Hero: Maybe I need a new house
Villian: The flames are moving toward the chip room.
Hero: :wideeyed: (folding quads)

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

[*]House rules that penalize players for not betting or raising with the nuts on the river (or in any way attempt to dictate actions that are supposed to be the player's choice)

It’s proably because of a lack of knowledge but why would anyone get penalized for this? Wouldn’t this only hurt the player with the nuts since they’re winning less than they should or could have?

 

[abby99]

It’s proably cause of a lack of knowledge but why would anyone get penalized for this? Wouldn’t this only hurt the player with the nuts since they’re winning less than they should or could have?

From what I've read on the subject, not betting/raising with the exclusive nuts* when last to act is or can be considered soft playing. TDs have discretion regarding whether to assess a penalty. It makes sense if we keep in mind that all tournament players are affected by each hand played -- taking or passing on the opportunity to reduce another player's stack affects all players.

Exclusive nuts = a hand that cannot be beaten or tied.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

From what I've read on the subject, not betting/raising with the exclusive nuts* when last to act is or can be considered soft playing. TDs have discretion regarding whether to assess a penalty. It makes sense if we keep in mind that all tournament players are affected by each hand played -- taking or passing on the opportunity to reduce another player's stack affects all players.

Exclusive nuts = a hand that cannot be beaten or tied.

So if as mentioned somewhere else, two players share each others tourney winnings - one plays soft against the other in order to not win chips from their teammate? Or is there more to it than that very blatant situation?

 

[abby99]

So if as mentioned somewhere else, two players share each others tourney winnings - one plays soft against the other in order to not win chips from their teammate? Or is there more to it than that very blatant situation?

There are many reasons (or excuses) for soft playing. The opponent might be a family member, a friend, someone who bought you a drink, a person that you're attracted to, or even someone who's fun to have at the table.

I find it interesting that soft playing is called collusion even if the unwitting opponent has no clue that it's happening until showdown.

Edit: Almost forgot the classics "I wanted to see his cards" and "He wouldn't have called anyway."

 

[1A25R]

I think that yesterday I had all at once,

The context: It's a free-roll league, so I understand that because is free-roll you can have all kind of players including new comers that never played live or eventually only played the game 2 or 3 times prior the event.
However there are 3 WPT entries for the 3 winners of the league.


1) Tournament starts: I'm Cut-off. When it's my turn to be BB we are already level 2

2) 4th hand played; UTG which is tilted because he lost his previous hand against a random hand, shoves all in (half stack) with . Fold until BB who takes 2 minutes to take the decision to call... and show I asked the girl if she really hesitate to call with aces or she slowplyed the guy. Boyfriend explains on her behalf that he saw in a tournament a pro player fold Aces preflop and was ok.

3) The one who call 4 bet with to open the odds to everyone. 5 players goes to the flop , he check call all bets of UTG +2 (with in hands) and wins the pot with a runner runner straight 8d:) and still believe that he played well

4) Next hand ; Button 3 bets, the one who lost against shoves all in, because "i got my aces, I call everything cause i got my favorite hand" Button call and shown , "favorite hand" shown THEN i realize that on his sweatshirt is embroiled "7 9 wins". No he didn't win QQ holds


I was tilted, card dead, lost 1/2 of my stack on 2 pairs against three of a kind on the river.
Blind eroded my stack, with 10 BB I doubled up with pocket Jacks, Blind eroded my stack, with less than 10 BB I lost all with vs
I lost 16 positions, i'm 55 out of 214. 6 more tournaments to go, next time I bring earpods a hoodie and sunglasses

 

[Poker Zombie]

So if as mentioned somewhere else, two players share each others tourney winnings - one plays soft against the other in order to not win chips from their teammate? Or is there more to it than that very blatant situation?

Here's a really basic example.

3 players left, top 2 paid. Player A and B are friends.

Player A: 500 BB
Player B: 2 BB
Player C: 2 BB

Players A and B are in the hand for 1 BB . Player A has the nuts, but checks it through.

Is that "fair" to player C? Would Player A check it through if Player C was the opponent?

Yes, the example is extreme but lesser cases do occur, so a rule needed to be made. In most home games, it's easier to suss out who is friends (to potential collusion) with who because the player field is relatively stable, presumably the host knows everyone, and can warn/uninvite players that collude. In a casino the rule needs to be applied universally, because a TD has no idea who knows who, and checking the nuts with no possible reraise/trap is the easiest form of collusion to prove.

In a casino the rule needs to be applied universially

 

[jja412]

What tilts me: my own stupidity.

 

[MattyMatt]

Actually Tilting?

I'm with jja412 - my own stupidity. Especially when paired with a cold deck.

Nothing worse to me than playing poorly/weak and with a deck that's cold. I really don't have much of an excuse in our game and should play better. It tilts me. And then other things annoy me more, but it's really my own poor play that truly tilts me. Couldn't care less about the money or winning. Just hate playing poorly.

Annoying on the other hand:

- Slow rolling or insisting on only showing one card at showdown
- Talking about a hand you're no longer playing
- Players requesting rule/etiquette changes when they're not a regular (if the requests are unreasonable)
- Players calling the clock on others yet having no problem talking about something else when it's their turn
- A poor blind / re-buy structure that benefits gamblers rather than good players
- People insisting on placing bets in the pot
- People making change from the pot before betting is over (is that a call?... a raise?...)
- After years of playing same people still say: "No, your raise has to be 2x"... which... no, it doesn't....

 

[Beakertwang]

After years of playing same people still say: "No, your raise has to be 2x"... which... no, it doesn't....

So I bet 100, you raise to 250, they insist that my min raise is 500?

 

[MattyMatt]

So I bet 100, you raise to 250, they insist that my min raise is 500?

No, they don't insist on that, it's more of a question. What happens (frequently) is this:

Beaker: "100".
Me: "Raise to 250"
JohnDoe: "What's the minimum I can raise again?"
FrankDoe: "It has to be twice the previous."
JohnDoe: "Ok, so I make it at least 500 total?"
Me, for the infinitieth time: "No, a raise should be equal to or higher than the largest bet or raise on this betting round, and never below the big blind."
JohnDoe: "Ok... so....???"

Two-three times per night. Year after year.

It's all due to people saying "it has to be double" after the initial bet. So if it had been "JohnDoe" acting before me after you bet 100, someone would have told John "It (total wager) has to be at least 2x when you raise". They don't realize that that's not the rule, it is the coincidental result of the rule in that very first instance.

 

[CantSpellPoker]

I don’t find myself tilted very often, if at all. A couple specific things I do find frustrating, though:

1. Players not in the pot talking about a hand that’s in progress, whether they’re hinting at what they mucked to their neighbor, or saying something as simple as, “Wow, that’s a big bet.”

2. People hesitating to turn over their cards at showdown. If you put out a river bet and get called, turn your goddamn cards over. Don’t ask, “Did you hit your flush?” or say, “I have a Queen.” Just flip them. Same when you go all in and get called. Just turn them over.

 

[Suited Connector]

People that take forever to act.
Acting out of turn.
Having to repeatedly say put in your ante, or you're the big blind.
These only apply to experienced players, if you're new, I have no problem helping you out or being patient.

 

[Jimulacrum]

It makes sense if we keep in mind that all tournament players are affected by each hand played -- taking or passing on the opportunity to reduce another player's stack affects all players.

It does affect all players, but it's each individual player's prerogative to decide how to affect it on each hand.

It should be entirely within my rights, for example, to avoid betting on the end to keep a hypothetical player intact because I don't want to change a game dynamic that strongly favors me. I could also check back like what's-his-name did to see the opponent's cards in a spot where betting had no value anyway. There are definitely spots where it makes sense to pass on the last bet when checking gets you something of greater value, and just because it affects everyone else doesn't mean a player should not be allowed to do it. Me turning spew monkey and pissing away all my chips changes the game dynamic too. The only time it needs to be prevented is when it does so unfairly, and checking back with the nuts doesn't automatically cross that line.

Also, the rule doesn't really protect anything, because even min bet into a huge pot is passable. Also also, even if the rule is enforced with orbits away from the table, it likely wouldn't dissuade someone from openly violating it if the price is right to keep a stakee or a friend in the game.

So why have a rule on the books that's trying to put out an imaginary fire, at the expense of a basic tenet of the game (that you get to choose your own actions), and in a way that doesn't actually put out the imaginary fire? To me, this rule is up there with that home game someone mentioned in another thread where you cap your cards with a chip to indicate a fold. Just doesn't make sense.