|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 9/5/2008 12:00:40 AM PACIFIC |
 Was I wrong?, Randy Vanderwerf, 12. Feb 2003 20:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| While playing omaha I was in seat 1 with a low 2/3 no ace in hand or on board. The flop was beat out by seat 9, a possible flush and 2 low cards on board. Myself and 2 others called the intial bettor. The dealer dealt the turn card, and I looked across the dealers body to watch the bettors indication, he moved his hand (w/ chips in them), out then back in, without releasing chips, I immediately called pass and moved back into my seat, while this was going on a player was shifting from the 6 seat to the 3 seat and the dealer was distracted. The seat 1 player then moved a bet out to the front, which when I saw it I claimed he could not now make a bet since he invoked a response from me with his motion and now knew I was weak. The other players also said that the seat 9 player had made the motion I described, only the dealer claimed to not see the motion, since the moving player distracted him. The player in seat 9 also claimed he moved his hand back in since the dealer was not watching the play and he to was distracted by the moving player. What is the correct call in this instance? The floor man said to me, " I know this player, he is not an angle shooter, so I will let him bet", I said, then I am forced by you to fold my hand since he now places me at a disadvantage. I feel the house needs to protect the player who is alert and is making the effort to watch the play. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Was I wrong?, Ashley Adams, 12. Feb 2003 20:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You were not wrong. However, if the Dealer did not see the action you described he was not wrong in doing what he did. He improperly referred to his knowledge of the player whom you said made a motion indicating that he was not betting. The Dealer's knowledge of the player as someone who wasn't an angle shooter is irrelevent. You, however, at this point could have called over the floor to make a decision. The Floor could have decided, based on your version of what happened and that of a witness, that the action did indeed occur and then direct the dealer to back up the bet and allow the check you attributed to the initial player to stand, followed by your check. Ashley Adams | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Was I wrong?, Randy Vanderwerf, 13. Feb 2003 10:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You understood my point, the fiduciary responsibility of the house is to ensure the non-daily player is protected and that the house is protected from angleshooters or even the hint of allowing this type of action. I am not saying this gentleman did anything more than what he claimed, but to allow the action to come in after I checked and make me feel like a 2nd class citizen, was wrong. I play here on the weekends against a tight group of locals and would like to see the house make protecting the weekend warriors more of a norm than what it is now. on 12. Feb 2003 20:43 Ashley Adams wrote: > You were not wrong. However, if the Dealer did not see the action you described he > was not wrong in doing what he did. He improperly referred to his knowledge of the > player whom you said made a motion indicating that he was not betting. The Dealer's > knowledge of the player as someone who wasn't an angle shooter is irrelevent. You, > however, at this point could have called over the floor to make a decision. The > Floor could have decided, based on your version of what happened and that of a > witness, that the action did indeed occur and then direct the dealer to back up the > bet and allow the check you attributed to the initial player to stand, followed by > your check. > > Ashley Adams | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Was I wrong?, stdioh, 14. Feb 2003 09:15 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 13. Feb 2003 10:17 Randy Vanderwerf wrote: > You understood my point, the fiduciary responsibility of the house is to ensure the > non-daily player is protected and that the house is protected from angleshooters or even > the hint of allowing this type of action. I am not saying this gentleman did anything > more than what he claimed, but to allow the action to come in after I checked and make me > feel like a 2nd class citizen, was wrong. > > I play here on the weekends against a tight group of locals and would like to see the > house make protecting the weekend warriors more of a norm than what it is now. I think that the most important thing here is that justice must be seen to be done...emphasis on the word seen. Unjust things happen all the time...misunderstandings and mistakes and the likes. What is important is that the house does its best to be impartial and indeed to look impartial. If the house is seen to favour the regular players in disputes, then *that* is a real problem. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Was I wrong?, Paul Stine, 18. Feb 2003 13:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I strongly suggest that you forget about what happened. All you are going to do is worry yourself into a nice bleeding ulcer. This is the type of small stuff that should not be sweated. It was one hand that you were going to pass on anyway (wisely, I might add.) Really, you can't correct history. Also, most cardroom have a policy about significant action. If one or two other people had acted after you there might be a case for canceling the seat 9 action. Paul Stine College Station, TX on 13. Feb 2003 10:17 Randy Vanderwerf wrote: > You understood my point, the fiduciary responsibility of the house is to ensure the > non-daily player is protected and that the house is protected from angleshooters or even > the hint of allowing this type of action. I am not saying this gentleman did anything > more than what he claimed, but to allow the action to come in after I checked and make me > feel like a 2nd class citizen, was wrong. > > I play here on the weekends against a tight group of locals and would like to see the > house make protecting the weekend warriors more of a norm than what it is now. > > on 12. Feb 2003 20:43 Ashley Adams wrote: > > You were not wrong. However, if the Dealer did not see the action you described he > > was not wrong in doing what he did. He improperly referred to his knowledge of the > > player whom you said made a motion indicating that he was not betting. The Dealer's > > knowledge of the player as someone who wasn't an angle shooter is irrelevent. You, > > however, at this point could have called over the floor to make a decision. The > > Floor could have decided, based on your version of what happened and that of a > > witness, that the action did indeed occur and then direct the dealer to back up the > > bet and allow the check you attributed to the initial player to stand, followed by > > your check. > > > > Ashley Adams | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Was I wrong?, stdioh, 13. Feb 2003 07:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that an important thing here is really knowing the house rules as to how to signal a check. At my local casino a check is a tap of the table or a verbal word, "check" ... any other ambiguous motions are not up to interpretation and the guy would be able to shoot his angle thusly...though if he did it a lot there, somebody would likely have words with him. Aside from this, he really doesn't have you at a disadvantage here, but you have him if you interpret his actions correctly. Why would he want to bet after an innitial check? Obviously he is interested either in a checkraise or he has a second from the top shelf hand and wants some indication that you are weak. Now that you know this you can play against him better. If you are holding something crappy, fold it now and save yourself from his monster. If you have something on the high end of nonpremium (like top pair decent kicker) then call his bet and see how he acts on the turn. Everything a player does gives you information about his hand and angle shooters are the best to peg in this way. I've played with tonnes of people who hold chips out for a call whenever they will fold to a bet...in order to prevent a bluff at them and allow them to improve or prevent a bet from a good hand fearing a raise. These guys are a joke to read then. Likewise, guys who act reluctant when they are holding the nuts, generally always put on the same act. Let him shoot his angles and fool you once...then hammer him and make him pay for it the next time. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|