Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OzExorcist, post: 2299762, member: 23910"] I don't think it's obvious that villain is lying - I wasn't there, but based on the description I think he actually [i]does[/i] have two pair here. Bottom two pair makes most sense. Given the fuss he kicks up about the hand not being shown, it makes sense that villain would think he had to show his own hand to claim the pot. If he's thinking that... really, how can he have anything other than two pair?!? It'd be an angle shoot that, in his own mind, he'd never be able to get away with. Grossberger's statement, on the other hand, was only ambiguous to someone who didn't know what cards he was holding. If he was holding two pair as well then there's some ambiguity - maybe his two pair is better than the villain's, maybe it isn't. It depends which two pair each has. Grossberger [b]knows[/b] he's only got top pair though. Saying that he can "maybe" beat two pair is an absolute lie, a misrepresentation of his hand and an angle shoot. The only way he can beat two pair is if his opponent mucks the better hand. Long story short: villain may or may not have lied about his hand (I think it's unlikely he was lying, but whatever). Grossberger [b]definitely[/b] lied about his hand. Going back to my broader point about the rule, if you have the "players must show their cards to claim any part of the pot" rule then this problem simply goes away. There's no potential for angle shooting from either party. Players can't muck their hands to hide collusion. The stupid time-wasting Mexican standoff of players not wanting to show their hands ends pretty quickly when the dealer tells the players that somebody has to show their cards if they want to get paid, so less time gets wasted. And since the rule applies to everyone, everyone gets and gives the same amount of so-called "free information" in the long run. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us