Poker Tour: Rules Oddities...
I went to law school but didn't like lawyers. No offense to most of you that I've met since then but plenty of offense to the rest of you. I couldn't see dedicating myself to working 60 hour weeks with some of the most vile and detestable people I've ever met. Okay... That's pretty harsh, especially from a guy in the poker industry, and considering the types of people I play online Texas Hold'em against for sixty hours a week, I've done exactly that.
No, I find many lawyers to be some of the most honest, industrious and intelligent people I used to know before they got savaged, jaded, and bitter. Just kidding. I never knew an honest person that became a lawyer. Okay, I'm totally joking. I like some lawyers, those lawyers that sue themselves. Sue who? sue everybody!
Okay, I'm part lawyer and I'm not a self-loather, so truth is there are lawyers that I like, and despite me enjoying an argument a little too much, including the rhetoric of persuasion, the mind game of fleshing out both sides of a point, and other aspects of debate, I still try to stay neutral for the most part. Nonetheless, as I look back over this blog, I find myself analyzing rules and floor decisions a little too much.
Here were a couple from last week I'll try not to get my lawyer on. In one hand, two players got to showdown. A player at one end of the table was a regular old man poker player except that he started out with a short stack and after losing it bought in for a even $1,000. Ten times more than his first buy-in at a no limit poker table.
Hmmm. He knew all the dealers and the floor staff, let me stop my story now... any wonder who is going to get the benefit of this call before I even finish? At the other end of the spectrum and the soon-to-be-revealed-controversy was a middle-age guy who looked kind of lawyerly, kind of weaselly, and squirmed a little to much for my liking.
The old man had his patter down and was funny. Hard not to root for that guy.
So they get to show down and the old man has top pair with a king kicker. The kid turns over his hand kind of brushes the table with it also showing top pair but a lesser kicker. The dealer quickly whisked the pot over to the old man and took in the cards.
Before the next hand was dealt, the kid, in a little bit of shock said, "There was an ace on the board, and it was paired, the kicker didn't play... The kicker didn't play."
The dealer said, "You didn't table your hand."
The kid was a little aghast, "Yes, I did."
Dealer said, "I only saw a 10 (the kicker not top pair)."
I vouch that indeed the kid openly showed his hand. Another reg (his familiarity with the staff and other players tipped me of he was a reg) immediately came to the defense of the old man, "I didn't see it. He didn't show it."
So they call over floor. The old man did one of those quasi-passive I'll split the pot with you but at time continued to stack the pot and kind of mesh into his chips. There appeared to be a little bit of separation of intent and spoken word. So the floor lady came out to settle the argument.
She immediately veered to the side of protecting her reg, and early questions and feedback centered on the definition of tabling the hand, that the pot has already been awarded, and driving toward an unfair conclusion.
To be continued...
No, I find many lawyers to be some of the most honest, industrious and intelligent people I used to know before they got savaged, jaded, and bitter. Just kidding. I never knew an honest person that became a lawyer. Okay, I'm totally joking. I like some lawyers, those lawyers that sue themselves. Sue who? sue everybody!
Okay, I'm part lawyer and I'm not a self-loather, so truth is there are lawyers that I like, and despite me enjoying an argument a little too much, including the rhetoric of persuasion, the mind game of fleshing out both sides of a point, and other aspects of debate, I still try to stay neutral for the most part. Nonetheless, as I look back over this blog, I find myself analyzing rules and floor decisions a little too much.
Here were a couple from last week I'll try not to get my lawyer on. In one hand, two players got to showdown. A player at one end of the table was a regular old man poker player except that he started out with a short stack and after losing it bought in for a even $1,000. Ten times more than his first buy-in at a no limit poker table.
Hmmm. He knew all the dealers and the floor staff, let me stop my story now... any wonder who is going to get the benefit of this call before I even finish? At the other end of the spectrum and the soon-to-be-revealed-controversy was a middle-age guy who looked kind of lawyerly, kind of weaselly, and squirmed a little to much for my liking.
The old man had his patter down and was funny. Hard not to root for that guy.
So they get to show down and the old man has top pair with a king kicker. The kid turns over his hand kind of brushes the table with it also showing top pair but a lesser kicker. The dealer quickly whisked the pot over to the old man and took in the cards.
Before the next hand was dealt, the kid, in a little bit of shock said, "There was an ace on the board, and it was paired, the kicker didn't play... The kicker didn't play."
The dealer said, "You didn't table your hand."
The kid was a little aghast, "Yes, I did."
Dealer said, "I only saw a 10 (the kicker not top pair)."
I vouch that indeed the kid openly showed his hand. Another reg (his familiarity with the staff and other players tipped me of he was a reg) immediately came to the defense of the old man, "I didn't see it. He didn't show it."
So they call over floor. The old man did one of those quasi-passive I'll split the pot with you but at time continued to stack the pot and kind of mesh into his chips. There appeared to be a little bit of separation of intent and spoken word. So the floor lady came out to settle the argument.
She immediately veered to the side of protecting her reg, and early questions and feedback centered on the definition of tabling the hand, that the pot has already been awarded, and driving toward an unfair conclusion.
To be continued...
Comments