• This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Interesting tournament Situation (1 Viewer)

Frogzilla said:
And that’s an insane angle to pull as that’s getting mucked more often than not without some very specific room & dealer knowledge, so despite the strong holding I think not-angle.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I would think most dealers would just muck the hand so Angle shot is super unlikely.
 
If she really thought you had bet on river, tank folding queen no kicker seems reasonable.

And once she has given up that she has a weak range, top pair is the nuts snap call

I think not-angle
 
Budha said:
If she was pretending to be a noob, that shine wears off pretty quick and you should be able to read it.
Click to expand...
If I were in OP's shoes, I would probably not want to spend enough time in this establishment to find out.

Terrys394 said:
Exactly. I would think most dealers would just muck the hand so Angle shot is super unlikely.
Click to expand...
This points me in the opposite direction.

It's extremely abnormal for a dealer in any commercial cardroom to retrieve a hand that was as unambiguously folded by the player as this hand in this case. Pretty sure it's written into the actual laws and regulations, and they're trained on it. What's the probability of this happening on any given hand with a dealer who's not on his first day, for the benefit of some random player he doesn't know? It's astronomically unlikely.

It's also extremely abnormal for a novice player to open-fold a hand as strong as queens up on this board. Noobs tend to open-fold garbage hands that whiffed the board and have no apparent value, not hands like top pair on a moderately safe board. Her call afterward makes it even stranger.

Each event is individually bizarre, and the "honest mistakes" perspective on this event (1) requires both of them to happen simultaneously by pure chance. I'm not saying it's impossible, only pointing out that it's a super-unlikely parlay.

I'd contend that it's more likely that it was (2) the result of cheats coming together to practice their craft, which happens often and doesn't require two bolts of lightning to strike the same place at the same time (probabilistically speaking).

You'll probably run into hundreds of cases of #2 in your life, of varying magnitudes, though you may not notice many of them. Case #1? Most people will die without ever seeing that.

Obviously I can't prove it one way or the other, but if this is all the information I'm getting, it's enough to make me not want to play in this place again.
 
Jimulacrum said:
If I were in OP's shoes, I would probably not want to spend enough time in this establishment to find out.


This points me in the opposite direction.

It's extremely abnormal for a dealer in any commercial cardroom to retrieve a hand that was as unambiguously folded by the player as this hand in this case. Pretty sure it's written into the actual laws and regulations, and they're trained on it. What's the probability of this happening on any given hand with a dealer who's not on his first day, for the benefit of some random player he doesn't know? It's astronomically unlikely.

It's also extremely abnormal for a novice player to open-fold a hand as strong as queens up on this board. Noobs tend to open-fold garbage hands that whiffed the board and have no apparent value, not hands like top pair on a moderately safe board. Her call afterward makes it even stranger.

Each event is individually bizarre, and the "honest mistakes" perspective on this event (1) requires both of them to happen simultaneously by pure chance. I'm not saying it's impossible, only pointing out that it's a super-unlikely parlay.

I'd contend that it's more likely that it was (2) the result of cheats coming together to practice their craft, which happens often and doesn't require two bolts of lightning to strike the same place at the same time (probabilistically speaking).

You'll probably run into hundreds of cases of #2 in your life, of varying magnitudes, though you may not notice many of them. Case #1? Most people will die without ever seeing that.

Obviously I can't prove it one way or the other, but if this is all the information I'm getting, it's enough to make me not want to play in this place again.
Click to expand...
Its more likely that a dealer and a confederate are working together to cheat a low stakes hold em tournament, versus a cute noob folding at the wrong time and a dealer thinking they can score some points by teaching them the rules?

The simpler assumption is the dealer broke the rules in a way they figured did no harm, takes way more assumptions to jump to them cheating together. They broke the rules, yes, but much more likely than a dynamic duo angle.

I dont hate a new player folding when theres a King on the board, weve all seen weirder, and I see her calling lighter after the embarrassment of the missed fold. Its much easier to get over those instances versus assuming collusion.
 
Last edited:
BPTDirector said:
just another example of our overly permissive society. What ever happened to rules being enforced her hand was fucking dead. no fuzzy bullshit allowed.
Click to expand...
You seem to be taking this personally. Pretty people have been getting away with things since we lived in caves lol.
 
NotRealNameNoSir said:
Its more likely that a dealer and a confederate are working together to cheat a low stakes hold em tournament, versus a cute noob folding at the wrong time and a dealer thinking they can score some points by teaching them the rules?

The simpler assumption is the dealer broke the rules in a way they figured did no harm, takes way more assumptions to jump to them cheating together. They broke the rules, yes, but much more likely than a dynamic duo angle.

I dont hate a new player folding when theres a King on the board, weve all seen weirder, and I see her calling lighter after the embarrassment of the missed fold. Its much easier to get over those instances versus assuming collusion.
Click to expand...
Have you actually seen a professional dealer in a public cardroom ever do this? It is almost certainly a serious violation of the gaming code. Even under the seemingly innocent explanation you suggest, we have to believe that this dealer—who had to go through special training and obtain a license to do his job—was willing to openly cheat on behalf of a stranger, on camera and in front of a table of witnesses. To flirt with a girl that he could flirt with a million other ways.

And it's not a "no harm" situation. The harm is that someone else is in the game who now unfairly loses against a hand that should be dead. If the dealer has more than 3 hours of experience, he knows knows all of this, and knows that the other potential harm is that he loses his job and/or his freedom for cheating at a licensed gaming establishment. Unnecessarily, to flirt with a random girl.

This in itself is odd enough. Pair it with the girl's bizarre choice to open-fold queens up, and I don't buy it. I will always look askew at two unlikely events that happen to complement each other, to the benefit of one of the participants.

Again, not saying it's impossible. But it's far less likely than the same event happening where the dealer and the girl already know each other.
 
Jimulacrum said:
Have you actually seen a professional dealer in a public cardroom ever do this? It is almost certainly a serious violation of the gaming code. Even under the seemingly innocent explanation you suggest, we have to believe that this dealer—who had to go through special training and obtain a license to do his job—was willing to openly cheat on behalf of a stranger, on camera and in front of a table of witnesses. To flirt with a girl that he could flirt with a million other ways.

And it's not a "no harm" situation. The harm is that someone else is in the game who now unfairly loses against a hand that should be dead. If the dealer has more than 3 hours of experience, he knows knows all of this, and knows that the other potential harm is that he loses his job and/or his freedom for cheating at a licensed gaming establishment. Unnecessarily, to flirt with a random girl.

This in itself is odd enough. Pair it with the girl's bizarre choice to open-fold queens up, and I don't buy it. I will always look askew at two unlikely events that happen to complement each other, to the benefit of one of the participants.

Again, not saying it's impossible. But it's far less likely than the same event happening where the dealer and the girl already know each other.
Click to expand...
Did not say it was a no harm situation, "in a way they figured did no harm", probably figured she was folding anyways. Yes, I've seen a dealer roll their eyes at folds at friendly tables and say there's no bet pending. Its illegal, absolutely rule-breaking, no ones arguing against that.

We can agree to disagree since there will be no investigation and no way of knowing but I really find it hard to believe that instead of assuming a dealer made a stupid decision, we are positing it is more likely they know each other and are actively cheating. We also know people have done dumber things for cute people, 100% not able to even discuss lol. Dealers aren't perfect and you're leaving out the fact that the floor supported the ruling; this cardroom may be more lax, doesn't sound like dealer is losing his stripes tomorrow. All factors that don't point straight to the dealer, floor, and random noob all in on a conspiracy to unfairly allow people to fold as an angle on the river.

Look askew at events, sure, but to say its more likely that they're cheating versus a dealer's dumb decision and a noob folding a Queen, I won't be able to come to terms with. We can talk about whether we'd go back there, and the floor and dealer are definitely in the wrong. But you can't say he's risking his job to do a dumb thing to impress a girl, when cheating with said girl would be risking the same license. Why risk their little experiment over this hand?
 
You lost any chance of her hand being dead after you acted in turn. I wish I was there to see that.

@Terrys394 just learn how to play poker

"7 handed... I have king high...no draw... I BET!"

Newbie tries to muck? I'll BLUFF!

Haha. Friendly game until Terry sits down.
 
Edit: I don't have a horse in the race and we won't ever know what went on. Thanks for your insight, I sincerely appreciate it and always good to see fresh perspectives.
 
Without rules we are reduced to animals. Part of the whole scam is how cute she is. Hello?!? The wrong head is thinking if you let her get away with this crap.
 
NotRealNameNoSir said:
Have you seen 12 Angry Men? Just curious.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen it and a lot more in my life. I remember when rules were rules and people obeyed out of respect and decency. That whole thing was a setup and since it’s not for big money people let it go. Again and again. Whatever happened to personal accountability and integrity??
 
casinochipper22 said:
You lost any chance of her hand being dead after you acted in turn. I wish I was there to see that.

@Terrys394 just learn how to play poker

"7 handed... I have king high...no draw... I BET!"

Newbie tries to muck? I'll BLUFF!

Haha. Friendly game until Terry sits down.
Click to expand...
If this isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black. This guy would bring a marked deck to his family’s nickel ante game.

You are right about one thing - after I bet the river it was like I accepted the Check. I didn’t want to argue it then because it would look like I was weak. Should have just let it go at that point.
 
BPTDirector said:
I’ve seen it and a lot more in my life. I remember when rules were rules and people obeyed out of respect and decency. That whole thing was a setup and since it’s not for big money people let it go. Again and again. Whatever happened to personal accountability and integrity??
Click to expand...
Alright now you're almost quoting the movie, I'm very impressed, that's spot on. "Whatsamatterwithyoukids?! You know how they are!!! Its not like how it was...."
 
A better ending to this story is her check-raising the river bluff after getting her folded hand back.

I don't think I could have contained my laughter. :D
 
ekricket said:
Is there a rule against folding with no action on you?
Click to expand...
Yes. Acting out of turn (i.e., no action on you) -- whether fold, check, bet, or raise -- violates both cash and tournament rules.

Are you trolling again?
 
BGinGA said:
Yes. Acting out of turn (i.e., no action on you) -- whether fold, check, bet, or raise -- violates both cash and tournament rules.

Are you trolling again?
Click to expand...
No, it just sounds like she was breaking a rule and the dealer politely corrected her.

And yeah, you are being a dick again.
 
ekricket said:
No, it just sounds like she was breaking a rule and the dealer politely corrected her.

And yeah, you are being a dick again.
Click to expand...
Nope, the action was on her, and she chose to fold. The dealer didn't correct her, he coached her and incorrectly returned her folded hand instead of putting it in the muck.

Which is why your question seemed odd, especially considering you already knew the answer.

I may be a dick, but I can read and comprehend written English.
 
BGinGA said:
Nope, the action was on her, and she chose to fold. The dealer didn't correct her, he coached her and incorrectly returned her folded hand instead of putting it in the muck.

Which is why your question seemed odd, especially considering you already knew the answer.

I may be a dick, but I can read and comprehend written English.
Click to expand...
I think she faces a penalty though. Her fold should have been accepted and she should have been warned. I can see how maybe he thought he was helping her with the rules, instead of draconianly enforcing them.

Unless I’m misreading this. I thought she folded with no bet to her - in her turn, but not facing any monetary action.
 
RagingAZN said:
In the short form TDA rules -

58: NON STANDARD FOLDS

Any time before the end of the final betting round, folding in turn if there’s no bet to you (EG: facing a check or first to act post-flop) or folding out of turn are binding folds subject to penalty.

…but she’s cute so let it go. Did you get her number?
Click to expand...
Yeah, this guy. Also only one player to a hand kinda thing.

Dealer and player should get a warning. Player should get two actually, folding to no action and accepting help in a hand from another player.
 
ekricket said:
Unless I’m misreading this. I thought she folded with no bet to her - in her turn, but not facing any monetary action.
Click to expand...
Correct, she was first to act on the river, with an option to check or bet. She chose to fold.

The fold is binding, and may invoke a penalty (because collusion/chip-dumping is a possible motive).
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

R
Critique my thought process...
Replies
16
Views
453
RofoPoker
R
seacuke
Tournament Situation
Replies
17
Views
562
Frogzilla
Frogzilla
NotRealNameNoSir
PAHWM: Handsome Player Faces Several Flop Decisions
Replies
13
Views
641
NotRealNameNoSir
NotRealNameNoSir
C
$140 Tournament Hand, Wrong Fold?
Replies
13
Views
693
ontheriver51
O
aurumity
Was this a punt?
Replies
23
Views
1K
Frogzilla
Frogzilla
Back
Top Bottom