I Called In Sick Today

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

yeah, that's what I just said

[brvheart 1,755]

I don't want to actually get any answers by asking the question... so I'll just assume that everyone missed me terribly.I have a crap-ton of ketchup to do... so I'll be back later.

[Tactical Bear 3]

Of course killing 1's hand is harsh, a penalty should cause some pain. It's a dumbass move and wouldn't be tolerated even in most home games I've played. Flip it up, and then muck it. Players 1 and 2 can then continue the hand, if they wish, with equal info. I don't understand the bolded, when did 1 see 2's cards and when did 3 see both the other players' cards?

Player 2 saw player 1's cards after player 3 raised.Player 3 saw player 1's cards AFTER SHE RAISED. The information available to each player is NOT equal.

It's totally appropriate to kill p1's hand. In many rooms intentionally exposing automatically kills your hand. He's basically ruined the hand, but you have no choice but to turn his cards face up for all to see and let the hand continue.

Does Player 1's intent matter? What if it was heads-up? What if it was a harmless mistake? What if he'd turned his hand face-up (intentionally) on the river, before there was any action, last to act, and said, "I forfeit my ability to bet," assuming we could hold him to that, somehow? What if he just turned his hand face-up and limped under the gun, and decided to play it out from there? I think killing Player 1's hand here is a bad ruling. If the floor can handle the situation right, he has put himself AND ONLY HIMSELF at a large disadvantage. Even if that disadvantage is shifted disproportionately among the players left in the hand, it's still a net benefit for the remaining players. If you were on the river, even if you were in a bad relative position, you'd think (and be correct in assuming) that you were better off having another player turn his hand face-up. Fuck "ruined the hand." He may have ruined HIS hand, and dramatically altered the range of potential outcomes, but on the whole, once his hand has been exposed, the damage has been done! Killing it only serves to further punish other players, and perhaps punish him for an unintentional boo-boo.

Agree with Hank that a penalty is supposed to cause pain and act as a deterrent. In my room, Player 1's hand is flipped up and mucked.Player two, therefore, is still facing a raise, but both he and 3 have the same info. I just let the hand continue, it's still a level playing field.

See, it's not though. Here's an extreme hypothetical:We're playing Limit Omaha Hi Low. On the river, the board reads 4d Ks 5d 9s 8d. 5 handed pot. You're second to act with KdKc2h3d. So your top set turned into the second-nut flush and a weak third-nut low. There is a two card nut/nut hand (Ad2d),and plenty of ways you can get none of this pot. It wouldn't be hard to find a fold here in a reasonable game, and leading out here would probably be suicide given the action. You check. Checked to the button who bets. As you're considering your action -- man, the pot's big, so I could call and pray, or I could pop it and hope to get a fold from A3, maybe hope she's value-betting something like middle set or a straight and A2, you aren't sure -- the player to your right, disgusted, shows you:"Ad Ac Ah As"Now you have nut/nut. Is the playing field level? Everyone has the same information once we turn his hand over, but it does YOU infinitely more good than it would do the player who bet. This situation was contrived just to prove a point, but it's IRRELEVANT whether the specific information helps you or not. It CAN help you; it CAN NOT help the player who bet. She already bet. She has the "same information," but it does her no good, because she's already taken action, and you have not.I am not particularly concerned with the decision to kill the exposer's hand; I don't like killing hands, as a general rule, but I could be convinced it works as a deterrent, and discourages the same behavior in the future. Let's just ignore that. Let's say we keep his hand alive...Do you guys see what I'm saying? That just turning the exposed hand face-up doesn't serve the purpose you're claiming it does?If nobody wants to engage me further, I'll understand, but (and this might be a shocker) I really like my job, and spend a lot of time thinking about my rulings. The feeling you get when you blow a call (and I've done it a few times) is awful, so I try like a motherfucker to avoid it. So, would you guys keep your decision the same? Or change it? If so, what would you do instead?

[Tactical Bear 3]

yeah, that's what I just said

I'm in a good mood, and I love that you didn't say anything that was so intensely critical that I had no choice but to interpret it as a deliberate attempt to hurt my feelings. In fact, if I could, I would kiss you right between the cheeks right now.

[Sickinfo2 291]

Dear Beans, septic tankSincerely, Erik

YES!You have nooooo idea how long Ive waited to have a good septic tank discussion around here....First off, the tank itself... It will most usually be a square made from concrete with a capacity of around a thousand gallons. The operational theory is simple.... everything you flush or pour down the plumbing drains ends up in it. Once inside, the solids are broken down into liquid form by bacteria/enzymes and flow out into the leach field where ideally fifty percent evaporates and fifty percent soaks into the sub-soil :pause for strat/mex to organize notes for the quiz to follow:Now.... maintenance for the homeownerThe biggest enemy of an individual sewage disposal system is toilet paper and tree roots (def on quiz) so if possible, quit wiping (or use the wifes dishtowel) and kill all the trees on the property. Overuse of TP causes a buildup of the stuff that blocks the inlet/outlet baffles (guards that keep solids from entering the leech field (four inch plastic pipes with small holes drilled in the bottom laid horizontally about twelve inches deep.... usually about three hundred feet of them depending on the number of bedrooms in the house). Tree roots are attracted to the moisture inside and grow in thru the holes, plugging up the system.Im not a fan of any sort of homeowner type additives because of their expense and quality.... some swear by the RidX stuff but most systems work as intended for many years without it. Id probably add some to a system that has sit abandoned for a few years to jumpstart the activity inside, otherwise save your moneyId concentrate on locating the main parts of the system for future maintenance.... the tank itself will have two inspection lids, one over the inlet baffle and one over the outlet. These can stop up occasionally so its a good idea to know where they are before the wife gets all pissed off because the toilets arent working for a week while you find them. The tank is usually only a few inches under the ground and around ten feet from the house straight out from a bathroom or exterior cleanoutAlso in the drought of summer the grass tends to die on top of it.... the grass over the leech fields are the opposite.... look for greener grass in straight lines during extended dry weatherI hope this helps you and Mex as well..... septic engineering is a great pickup conversation in the bars

beans,stick lodged in anussincerely,

Another good way to stop up a system....

Beans is banging the trailer trash up the street in exchange for fixing her driveway.

No way....One woman in my life is all I can stand, and shes borderline most of the timePlus that gals fertility is so rich Id be afraid to even take a leak in the woods around there....The best I can tell all she needs is a dick pointed in her general direction to conceive

[Tactical Bear 3]

Beans:I am having an automobile problem. Would you rather I post it here -- where you can make first mock, and then grow incredibly frustrated by -- my complete cluelessness with regards to cars/manly shit? (It should be noted that I have no problem with this, really. I wears suits and shit. I pay people to handle the manual labor in my life. Or I borrow money from my parents, and use THAT money to pay the Manual Laborers in my life.) Or would you like to handle it via PM?Kisses,Derek

[Sickinfo2 291]

Beans:I am having an automobile problem. Would you rather I post it here -- where you can make first mock, and then grow incredibly frustrated by -- my complete cluelessness with regards to cars/manly shit?Kisses,Derek

Yeah, post it here.... my pm box is maxed out with miscellaneous information that Id rather not deleteIf it gets too involved Ill use another account or something

[hank213 1,823]

TB, I'm confused. In the original it was stated 3 was not shown the cards only 2. It matters. If you don't want to kill the hand (which is incorrect imho*) 3 should be shown the hand. The tactical considerations of the players are their own. The job of the house is to run as level a game as possible and allowing players to selectively share information is in direct contravention of that objective.--edit*in the original premise of 3 not seeing the hand.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I drive a 1997 Chevy Lumina. I am not sure if this is relevant, but it is crimson. I have had plenty of problems with it. It fucking sucks.Starting a while back -- this winter, I believe -- I would try to start it, and it wouldn't start. I'm stupid, so I thought it was the battery at first, but the lights worked, the radio worked, etc. I would leave it for a few minutes, and -- presto -- no problem. The problem has continued, with varying frequency, for a while, now. Sometimes it happens after I haven't driven it for a while (say, 8 or 9 hours while I'm at work). It also happens pretty often when it's been off for a really short period of time. Once I popped into the gas station to grab a cup of coffee, and when I came out, no start.It doesn't turn over, or sound like it's trying to go but not getting there. In fact, I don't think it makes any sound at all. I believe there may be a very, very, very soft hum if I keep the ignition turned, but that could also be me just hearing something that's not there. No clicks, no duh-duh-duh-duh. I'll try again try again try again try again, nothing.Wait about 2-5 minutes and it goes without a hitch. A few days ago, I tried to get it to start for about 6 minutes with constant/consistent effort (maybe if I push REALLY HARD? or pull on the steering wheel??) and it didn't work. I smoked a cigarette, tried again, and it went. Always like that.My brain thinks something like: "I don't know if there's a wire that connects the ignition to the engine -- like you turn the key, and it sends a signal to start -- but maybe that wire is frayed, or the connection is loose? Leave it for a bit, it expands or contracts and it's fine?"Any help would be appreciated.

[Tactical Bear 3]

TB, I'm confused. In the original it was stated 3 was not shown the cards only 2. It matters. If you don't want to kill the hand (which is incorrect imho) 3 should be shown the hand. The tactical considerations of the players are their own. The job of the house is to run as level a game as possible and allowing players to selectively share information is in direct contravention of that objective.

She wasn't shown the hand by the player who held it. Player 1 showed it to player 2. But the solution everybody suggested was based on the idea that exposing the hand after it had been shown -- turning it face up on the table so all could see it -- would fix the problem. Hank, I am not disagreeing with step 1 of everybody's response, which is "Expose Player 1's hand so all can see it." (We disagree on what should happen to Player 1 and I'd like to discuss that later, but we can effectively ignore it for now.) What I'm saying is: do you think the game is made level -- that player 2 and player 3 are now on a level playing field relative to each other -- if we expose Player 1's hand, and say: "Okay, continue the hand?"As an aside, I am confused as to why you believe I advocate giving players the ability "to selectively share information." I am not being antagonistic, I am simply confused. What is it I said that makes you think I believe, I dunno, that Player 1's hand SHOULDN'T be exposed?

[Sickinfo2 291]

I drive a 1997 Chevy Lumina.It doesn't turn over, or sound like it's trying to go but not getting there.My brain thinks something like: "I don't know if there's a wire that connects the ignition to the engine -- like you turn the key, and it sends a signal to start -- but maybe that wire is frayed, or the connection is loose? Leave it for a bit, it expands or contracts and it's fine?"Any help would be appreciated.

The first thing that comes to mind is a VATS system....Does your key have a small black plastic oval with a small line of metal in the center on the blank? If it does and the key is worn quite a bit the resistor inside the key isnt being read by the computer, which in turn keeps the car from startingI have had several incidents with that shit system over the years... there are around twelve different "pellets" that can be used and GMs thinking was if each incorrect one delayed the starter for four or five minutes it would take too much time for a thief to steal the carLet me know about the key and we'll go from there

[speedz99 145]

Nikki, Renae and Jeff are all posting in here more which not-so-secretly weirds you all out.

Speedz disagrees with this.

I don't want to actually get any answers by asking the question... so I'll just assume that everyone missed me terribly.I have a crap-ton of ketchup to do... so I'll be back later.

Speedz is amused by this.

I'm in a good mood, and I love that you didn't say anything that was so intensely critical that I had no choice but to interpret it as a deliberate attempt to hurt my feelings. In fact, if I could, I would kiss you right between the cheeks right now.

Speedz almost made a funny joke here, but lost his train of thought and can't remember what said joke was.

You have nooooo idea how long Ive waited to have a good septic tank discussion around here....

Speedz thinks he has a pretty good idea.

I drive a 1997 Chevy Lumina. I am not sure if this is relevant, but it is crimson.

Speedz has a funny feeling that this is the vehicle of choice for all small poker room managers.

As an aside, I am confused as to why you believe I advocate giving players the ability "to selectively share information." I am not being antagonistic, I am simply confused. What is it I said that makes you think I believe, I dunno, that Player 1's hand SHOULDN'T be exposed?

I'm not sure why I started the third person thing, but it's not working and I'm too lazy to go back and change it. Anyway, I agree with everyone in that the hand has to be exposed. The only issue here is whether or not to trash it, which I strongly think should be done. A few people have already said it...there has to be a severe enough punishment for there to be an incentive not to do it again in any situation. Sure it's unlikely that such a situation would come up, but still.Isn't there a rulebook for this kind of thing? Or is it totally subjective for card room managers?

[jeff_536 3]

She wasn't shown the hand by the player who held it. Player 1 showed it to player 2. But the solution everybody suggested was based on the idea that exposing the hand after it had been shown -- turning it face up on the table so all could see it -- would fix the problem. Hank, I am not disagreeing with step 1 of everybody's response, which is "Expose Player 1's hand so all can see it." (We disagree on what should happen to Player 1 and I'd like to discuss that later, but we can effectively ignore it for now.) What I'm saying is: do you think the game is made level -- that player 2 and player 3 are now on a level playing field relative to each other -- if we expose Player 1's hand, and say: "Okay, continue the hand?"As an aside, I am confused as to why you believe I advocate giving players the ability "to selectively share information." I am not being antagonistic, I am simply confused. What is it I said that makes you think I believe, I dunno, that Player 1's hand SHOULDN'T be exposed?

The hand will never be level. It's your goal, then, to make it as level as possible.So what are our options? For the moment, we'll ignore player 1.Player 2 now has additional information before he acts on 3's raise. Options include:A) giving everyone their money back and calling it no hand;B) allowing player 2 to only call the bet and have it go to showdown or fold to the raise and let player 3 take the pot;C) allowing player 2 to do whatever the hell he wants.I think this is the question you're looking to resolve. Should player 2 be allowed to act aggressively on the new information. We're going for what's 'fair'. You said it's a 3/6 limit game, so that means player 2 isn't going to throw out a pot-sized bet to move 3 off their hand. If we allow them whatever action we want, at worst 2 raises then 3 can either call/raise. But, as you said, player 1's action may allow 2 to act with more information than is fair.So I choose B) based on what's presented. Allow 2 to call 3's raise and show it down or fold.And in my room, 1's hand is folded. I see how, in the type of room in which your work you might now want to piss off players that much, but it's taboo anywhere I've ever heard for a player to reveal his cards while the hand is in play. In fact, action was still on him. So I don't know how you're going to resolve that.

[Bizzle 0]

Tactical Wang, you know how you overthink things?You're overthinking this.Expose it, kill it, move on.

[hank213 1,823]

She wasn't shown the hand by the player who held it. Player 1 showed it to player 2. But the solution everybody suggested was based on the idea that exposing the hand after it had been shown -- turning it face up on the table so all could see it -- would fix the problem. Hank, I am not disagreeing with step 1 of everybody's response, which is "Expose Player 1's hand so all can see it." (We disagree on what should happen to Player 1 and I'd like to discuss that later, but we can effectively ignore it for now.) What I'm saying is: do you think the game is made level -- that player 2 and player 3 are now on a level playing field relative to each other -- if we expose Player 1's hand, and say: "Okay, continue the hand?"As an aside, I am confused as to why you believe I advocate giving players the ability "to selectively share information." I am not being antagonistic, I am simply confused. What is it I said that makes you think I believe, I dunno, that Player 1's hand SHOULDN'T be exposed?

Then why the lengthy hypothetical essentially arguing against the concept of leveling the field? But that's really neither here nor there. The concept of a level field was not necessarily for specific situation. It's simply a concept forming a basis, if you will, of the rest of the decision. In this specific instance I think it could potentially come down to how the cards were exposed as well as any specific house rule regarding the exposing of cards. If 1 purposefully showed 2 his hand I would still probably kill the hand as an object lesson. In the hypothetical, let's suppose the other player also has the nut low and the 2nd nut flush. If she sees the hand she knows she can't get scooped but that's the only way she knows it. Whether she ever even considers let alone decides that she can get quartered is a conclusion for her, not the floor, to reach given the information to which all other players have access. That last bit is really the key here, the equal access to information regardless of the value to a specific player.

[jeff_536 3]

D-rock's been typing for like 15 minutes.

[hank213 1,823]

D-rock's been typing for like 15 minutes.

Probably trying to figure out how to best post the spread sheet of an excel simulation he put together for the hand situation.

[jeff_536 3]

Probably trying to figure out how to best post the spread sheet of an excel simulation he put together for the hand situation.

I doubt the work would be his own, though.

[hank213 1,823]

I doubt the work would be his own, though.

somebody might be getting 3's and 4's across the board.

[Tactical Bear 3]

Tactical Wang, you know how you overthink things?You're overthinking this.Expose it, kill it, move on.

You know how I know I'm your intellectual superior? (I was going to leave it at that, but then I worried, me being your intellectual superior and all, that you might not understand. It's because I'm not intellectually lazy. It's because I am unwilling to accept the simple answer when there exists the possibility of a better answer, and all it might take is a little bit of effort. Maybe a few minutes of analysis -- of taking the problem, getting to the root of it, asking the question in enough different ways while I'm sitting on my ass watching Ocean's Eleven on TBS before I go to bed -- will lead me to the best answer. I know that for some people that effort isn't worth it, but for somebody who truly believes in the life-examined, in knowledge for the sake of knowledge, of understanding as a valuable end in itself, well, Bizzle: I'm going to fucking overthink it, because that's the only way to ensure you've thought about it enough.)

The hand will never be level. It's your goal, then, to make it as level as possible.Player 2 now has additional information before he acts on 3's raise. Options include:B) allowing player 2 to only call the bet and have it go to showdown or fold to the raise and let player 3 take the pot;C) allowing player 2 to do whatever the hell he wants.I think this is the question you're looking to resolve. s you said, player 1's action may allow 2 to act with more information than is fair.So I choose B) based on what's presented. Allow 2 to call 3's raise and show it down or fold.And in my room, 1's hand is folded. I see how, in the type of room in which your work you might now want to piss off players that much, but it's taboo anywhere I've ever heard for a player to reveal his cards while the hand is in play. In fact, action was still on him. So I don't know how you're going to resolve that.

Yes. The goal is to make the continued contestation of the hand as fair as possible. I don't think the two options you presented are comprehensive, and neither was the resolution I chose, but we are now discussing the same problem. Question: Say Player 2 has the stone-fucking-nuts. Player 1 makes a mistake. As a result of Player 1's error, should we tell Player 2, "Sorry, I know you've got a good hand, but because of Player 1's actions, we are not going to be able to allow you to get value from your hand. Call or fold."As far as my reasons for keeping Player 1's hand alive: old people, for example, make mistakes all the time -- in casinos, in local card rooms, etc. -- and it is unavoidable. If I can reasonably determine that a player is shooting an angle, trying to gain an advantage, acting with reckless disregard of the other players (or if he is simply too big of a liability to the game), then I will kill the hand. If the hand being exposed causes a player to act behind, or misplay his hand as a result of confusion, I will kill the hand. If he exposes his hand and somehow gains an advantage, I will kill his hand. Otherwise I give him a warning, and if it happens again I will kill his hand. If it happens again after that, and there are no extenuating circumstances, he's gone for the day. I'll handle deterrence in my cardroom AFTER the hand is over. Finally, Beans, here is my key. There is another key for the door, but I don't think you need that.

[jeff_536 3]

Yes. The goal is to make the continued contestation of the hand as fair as possible. I don't think the two options you presented are comprehensive, and neither was the resolution I chose, but we are now discussing the same problem. Question: Say Player 2 has the stone-fucking-nuts. Player 1 makes a mistake. As a result of Player 1's error, should we tell Player 2, "Sorry, I know you've got a good hand, but because of Player 1's actions, we are not going to be able to allow you to get value from your hand. Call or fold."As far as my reasons for keeping Player 1's hand alive: old people, for example, make mistakes all the time -- in casinos, in local card rooms, etc. -- and it is unavoidable. If I can reasonably determine that a player is shooting an angle, trying to gain an advantage, acting with reckless disregard of the other players (or if he is simply too big of a liability to the game), then I will kill the hand. If the hand being exposed causes a player to act behind, or misplay his hand as a result of confusion, I will kill the hand. If he exposes his hand and somehow gains an advantage, I will kill his hand. Otherwise I give him a warning, and if it happens again I will kill his hand. If it happens again after that, and there are no extenuating circumstances, he's gone for the day. I'll handle deterrence in my cardroom AFTER the hand is over.

Okay, so what's the solution?And I don't care if they're old and/or stupid. You show your hand while both you and the person you're showing it to still have to act, your hand gets mucked.

[hank213 1,823]

Yes. The goal is to make the continued contestation of the hand as fair as possible. Question: Say Player 2 has the stone-fucking-nuts. Player 1 makes a mistake. As a result of Player 1's error, should we tell Player 2, "Sorry, I know you've got a good hand, but because of Player 1's actions, we are not going to be able to allow you to get value from your hand. Call or fold."As far as my reasons for keeping Player 1's hand alive: old people, for example, make mistakes all the time -- in casinos, in local card rooms, etc. -- and it is unavoidable. If I can reasonably determine that a player is shooting an angle, trying to gain an advantage, acting with reckless disregard of the other players (or if he is simply too big of a liability to the game), then I will kill the hand. If the hand being exposed causes a player to act behind, or misplay his hand as a result of confusion, I will kill the hand. If he exposes his hand and somehow gains an advantage, I will kill his hand. Otherwise I give him a warning, and if it happens again I will kill his hand. If it happens again after that, and there are no extenuating circumstances, he's gone for the day. I'll handle deterrence in my cardroom AFTER the hand is over.

A problem with this, from a player perspective, is it appears arbitrary. If I'm sitting with a bunch of people that I'm fairly convinced will be given much wider latitude of action why would I continue to play there?

[Tactical Bear 3]

Then why the lengthy hypothetical essentially arguing against the concept of leveling the field? But that's really neither here nor there. The concept of a level field was not necessarily for specific situation. It's simply a concept forming a basis, if you will, of the rest of the decision. In this specific instance I think it could potentially come down to how the cards were exposed as well as any specific house rule regarding the exposing of cards. If 1 purposefully showed 2 his hand I would still probably kill the hand as an object lesson. In the hypothetical, let's suppose the other player also has the nut low and the 2nd nut flush. If she sees the hand she knows she can't get scooped but that's the only way she knows it. Whether she ever even considers let alone decides that she can get quartered is a conclusion for her, not the floor, to reach given the information to which all other players have access. That last bit is really the key here, the equal access to information regardless of the value to a specific player.

1) The lengthy hypothetical was meant to illustrate that simply flipping the hand over doesn't solve the problem. 2) Eh, I'm not particularly concerned about the house rules. I mean, they govern my decisions, but in this case I'm just trying to get a good answer, all things being equal. As an aside, Player 1 intentionally showed his hand, but was not showing it to a player he knew was in the hand. He wasn't trying to show his buddy a hand, or something. He just thought Player 2 was not in the hand. He is kind of an idiot. 3) Stopping the action and flipping the hand face-up does not result in equal access to the information. The value of the information is irrelevant, on that we agree. But what if a player bets in a heads-up, then we flip over EVERY SINGLE CARD in the stub, and all the mucked cards, and all the burn cards. Everyone has equal access to the information, but now both players are, effectively, playing with their hands face-up. And the player who bet has a bet chilling out there. She will only get called if she loses, and never get called when she wins. Turning the exposed cards face-up does NOT make the field even with respect to the remaining actions, because ONE PLAYER HAS ALREADY ACTED.

[Tactical Bear 3]

A problem with this, from a player perspective, is it appears arbitrary. If I'm sitting with a bunch of people that I'm fairly convinced will be given much wider latitude of action why would I continue to play there?

It's not exactly arbitrary, but I take your point. However, I think that inconsistency which results in a better, fairer outcome is better than consistency simply for consistency's sake. Am I good arbiter? I think so. But I can imagine your frustration when old, half-blind Ray gets some leeway for flipping his cards face-up before the action is complete when he has the nut flush. But I would also give YOU some leeway, there, since your harmed yourself and nobody else. I trust myself to make judgments, but I can understand your reservation about trusting me to make judgments.

[Tactical Bear 3]

And I don't care if they're old and/or stupid. You show your hand while both you and the person you're showing it to still have to act, your hand gets mucked.

Always? to what end? As a means to ensure it doesn't happen tomorrow? Or because it's the right, fair thing to do? (Utilitarianism vs. Deontology, nigggaaaaaas)