Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Warning: A bad dealer can cost you your stack!

1235

Comments

  • #122
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    fixer wrote:
    Where do you read this rule? I have never seen any rules that state players have *rights* to see any cards. The rules state a sequence of action for a showdown, but don't give you any rights to see cards and don't prevent me from putting my cards into the muck ("mucking" = the process of putting your cards into the muck. Folding/passing/surrendering involve just discarding your hand without specific mention of placing them into the muck)

    Of course the dealer ignored you, because you were being annoying without a firm grasp on what you were talking about.


    Fixer, you're wrong, on many levels, and everything that you mention has been covered.

    The Dealer was also in the wrong, a dealer should never ignore a player that genuinely asks for a clarification of the house rules. I don't think you will find one person who would agree with you on that.

    Stop trying to get involved for the sake of arguing, you're embarrassing yourself.





    http://poker.sportinglife.com/Rules/index.shtml

    # 'Any player may request to see any hand that has been called. If a player other than the winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winner asks to see a loosing player's hand then both hands are live and best hand wins all.'


    I could look for and find 100,000 more examples, this rule is commonplace in the vast majority of cardrooms,

    However, even if it were not the case in this cardroom, That just needed to be clarified by the dealer, or if he wasn't sure, a floorperson.


  • #123
    Mr. Flibble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,364 ✭✭✭Mr. Flibble


    The-Rigger wrote:
    # 'Any player may request to see any hand that has been called. If a player other than the winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winner asks to see a loosing player's hand then both hands are live and best hand wins all.'
    This is an anti-collusion rule which is being abused when people ask to see the cards for info/the sake of it.


  • #124
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Bandana boy wrote:
    Sounds more like it is you who is slowrolling here DEV

    Again i think you need to put into perspective if you have rivered or improved late you should state your hand and allow opponent to fold
    If you have called what you believe is a bluff then i can understand wanting to see the cards
    wtf are you talking about?

    Slowrolling is taking a long time when you have seen your opponents cards and you KNOW you have the best hand before showing it. Thats not what I'm saying here and I'll thank you to read things more carefully and engage brain before making remarks like that.

    DeV.


  • #125
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Mr. Flibble wrote:
    This is an anti-collusion rule which is being abused when people ask to see the cards for info/the sake of it.
    Firstly, whether it is anti collusion or not is irrelevant. Its the rules.

    Secondly, the idea of poker is that it is an equal wager from each player and the best man wins. The pot consists of equal amounts from each player. In the way its being suggested that a player can fold unnseen, he has wagered only chips where as the winner has wagered chips AND information.

    If you think information has no value then you simply dont fully understand the game.

    When I was first taught to play (by Luke Ivory in fact), I distinctly remember him telling me "if you have a big hand, like a top house, a poker or the stone colds then dont be slow to show it, make it a quick kill, thats the way we all play" and in that spirit I usually do show big hands immediately without waiting. The idea was to allow your opponent to fold without humiliating him or embarrassing him. That was a *courtesy* which is now being demanded (inaccurately).

    This has changed recently with the arrival of people who simply have no concept of the community around poker, no class or no manners and who angle-grind at every possibility arguing that they owe nothing to no one.
    One such trick is always waiting for your opponent to show and then deciding to show or not (thus "winning" the information every time) and firing the cards into the muck to deny the caller his right to see your cards (and he DOES have that right, in fact he just PAID for it) and that is angle grinding in my book.
    In fact, by firing it into the muck he is effectively accepting that he KNOWS the opponent has the right to see his cards and is putting them in the only place where that right can be effectively stymied.

    DeV.


  • #126
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    DeVore wrote:
    Firstly, whether it is anti collusion or not is irrelevant. Its the rules.

    Secondly, the idea of poker is that it is an equal wager from each player and the best man wins. The pot consists of equal amounts from each player. In the way its being suggested that a player can fold unnseen, he has wagered only chips where as the winner has wagered chips AND information.

    If you think information has no value then you simply dont fully understand the game.

    When I was first taught to play (by Luke Ivory in fact), I distinctly remember him telling me "if you have a big hand, like a top house, a poker or the stone colds then dont be slow to show it, make it a quick kill, thats the way we all play" and in that spirit I usually do show big hands immediately without waiting. The idea was to allow your opponent to fold without humiliating him or embarrassing him. That was a *courtesy* which is now being demanded (inaccurately).

    This has changed recently with the arrival of people who simply have no concept of the community around poker, no class or no manners and who angle-grind at every possibility arguing that they owe nothing to no one.
    One such trick is always waiting for your opponent to show and then deciding to show or not (thus "winning" the information every time) and firing the cards into the muck to deny the caller his right to see your cards (and he DOES have that right, in fact he just PAID for it) and that is angle grinding in my book.
    In fact, by firing it into the muck he is effectively accepting that he KNOWS the opponent has the right to see his cards and is putting them in the only place where that right can be effectively stymied.


    DeV.



    Exactly Dev, I've gotten tired of having many posters ignore everything I've said.

    The player whose bet was called should not reach over and drops his hand in the muck, simple as, and the dealer should correct him on it.

    Good to see someone has a grasp of the rules.

    It is nothing to do with anti-collusion, it is a called bet on the river, or as some people say when they call 'I see you'.

    Good to see someone has a handle on the rules.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Bandana boy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,341 ✭✭✭Bandana boy


    DeVore wrote:
    wtf are you talking about?

    Slowrolling is taking a long time when you have seen your opponents cards and you KNOW you have the best hand before showing it. Thats not what I'm saying here and I'll thank you to read things more carefully and engage brain before making remarks like that.

    DeV.
    Alright Dev keep your knickers on

    you state in your post "bad manners" from other players and your solution is to not identify your hand regardless of strength until they show theres

    That in my book is bad ettiquette and a type of slow rolling

    As I also posted it needs to be put into perpective of what has happened in the hand and the strength of your hand.

    there are times i would do as you suggest but rarely
    Often I will call and state the value of my hand with the call ,I find it keeps the game going and keeps the confrontation nature out of the game

    Just my opinion and try not to take a different point of view so personal in future


  • #128
    Mr. Flibble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,364 ✭✭✭Mr. Flibble


    DeVore wrote:
    Firstly, whether it is anti collusion or not is irrelevant. Its the rules.
    DeV, what rules? The rules I have read have stated that viewing of the cards may be requested if cheating is suspected.

    Of course information is valuable, hence not wishing to give it away unless necessary.

    It is obvious at this point that some people believe the rules should say that all hands must be shown at the end of the action on the river when 2 or more players have put the same amount of chips in the pot and others do not - very likely influenced by the fact that most online poker rooms choose the latter and allow you to muck your hand, and only allow viewing through an often arduous process by emailing support or whatever.
    And as there are no standard rules there is no correct answer. We can only use the rules we have played in previously as precident. People seem to have played in games with different rules in the past and we therefore cannot come to a 'correct' answer.


  • #129
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    Mr. Flibble wrote:
    DeV, what rules? The rules I have read have stated that viewing of the cards may be requested if cheating is suspected.

    Of course information is valuable, hence not wishing to give it away unless necessary.

    It is obvious at this point that some people believe the rules should say that all hands must be shown at the end of the action on the river when 2 or more players have put the same amount of chips in the pot and others do not - very likely influenced by the fact that most online poker rooms choose the latter and allow you to muck your hand, and only allow viewing through an often arduous process by emailing support or whatever.
    And as there are no standard rules there is no correct answer. We can only use the rules we have played in previously as precident. People seem to have played in games with different rules in the past and we therefore cannot come to a 'correct' answer.


    exept that there is and we can.

    If you call a player, then you have a right to see his hand, end of story, thats what is been paid for.

    If this were not the case, you would have an option online to Bet on the river - and muck your hand if called, because you were bluffing, this isn't possible, your cards are always shown.

    Please don't say that this couldn't be put into the software, of course it could, the reason it isn't, is that it is the right of everyone at the table to see your hand if you are called when making the last bet on the river.


  • #130
    Mr. Flibble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,364 ✭✭✭Mr. Flibble


    The-Rigger wrote:
    exept that there is and we can.

    If you call a player, then you have a right to see his hand, end of story, thats what is been paid for.

    If this is the rule in the club then this is the rule in the club. If it is not it is not.


  • #131
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    Mr. Flibble wrote:
    he rules I have read have stated that viewing of the cards may be requested if cheating is suspected.

    Link/Reference? Are you saying this is the only reason that a losing player has to show their cards.

    Devore's post is spot on; losing players technically have to show their cards, but the etiquette side of the game means that a lot of (decent) players just wont ask for it. I also agree with what The-Rigger has been saying, even if he did get flamed for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    iBoT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭iBoT


    This may clear things up a bit,

    from the luke ivorys mouth : in this cardclub the remaining players in a hand have to showdown there hands, but as a courtesy will let players muck there hands. he said that about a month ago.



    So in theory i could go into the fitz tonight and whatever table i'm sitting on the could implement that rule for the night .


  • #133
    Mr. Flibble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,364 ✭✭✭Mr. Flibble


    lenny_leonard wrote:
    Link/Reference?
    Arrgughhh. I'll try to find it later. Not that it is so important as iBot has clarified that the Fitz doesn't follow this rule.
    lenny_leonard wrote:
    Are you saying this is the only reason that a losing player has to show their cards.
    I think so. Except in a tournament all players in hand -1 are all in before the river and the loosing player has not yet been determined. Can't think of other circuimstances.


  • #134
    Mr. Flibble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,364 ✭✭✭Mr. Flibble


    lenny_leonard wrote:
    Link/Reference?
    link, also discussed here.

    Excerpt:
    ---
    11.08 REQUESTS TO SEE A CALLED HAND.
    Players shall not be entitled to see a called hand except in cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of collusion, in which case the floorperson shall be called over for examination of the called hand. This is contrary to the traditional rule. However the traditional rule, which was designed to prevent collusion, has not served its original purpose. Asking to see called hands slows down the game, causes resentment and impedes action. The first alternate rule continues to be the most prevalent, but in the interests of the game it should be completely done away with. (Alternate Rule. At the showdown, any player who was dealt into the hand has the right to ask to see any called hand. Before turning over the hand the dealer shall kill the hand by touching it to the muck. If the hand is not killed it is still live and eligible to win the pot. In high limit games, the right to see a called hand is limited to situations where a floorperson is present for the request. The purpose of this rule is to protect against collusion, not to satisfy a player's curiosity or get a read on a player's style of play, or worst of all to intentionally irritate a player. Abuse of this rule is very bad for poker as it kills action and causes resentment. Many people favor retention of this rule because it makes new players comfortable that they are not being cheated. Second Alternate Rule. Only players who have been in on the turn in hold em games, fifth street in stud games, and for the draw in draw games shall have the right to see a called hand; also, a winner cannot ask to see a loser's hand.) Where the right to see a called hand is the rule, continuous requests to see hands shall be considered a breach of poker etiquette and may be grounds for removal from the game. There is no right to see a called losing hand under any circumstances in head's up play.
    ---

    As you can see, have been many different rule variations. One of which (as proposed above) is that the loosing cards can be mucked and not be exposed.


  • #135
    fixer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 555 ✭✭✭fixer


    The-Rigger wrote:
    http://poker.sportinglife.com/Rules/index.shtml

    # 'Any player may request to see any hand that has been called. If a player other than the winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winner asks to see a loosing player's hand then both hands are live and best hand wins all.'

    you didn't ask to see the hand (which you need to do before the cards are in the muck), you complained that the player put his cards into the muck, and made up some rule that says the dealer should block him from doing that.

    Keep searching, maybe you'll find the "rule" somewhere online. Tell ya what, why not make a webpage of your rules and see if you can get a following?


  • #136
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    Mr. Flibble wrote:
    As you can see, have been many different rule variations. One of which (as proposed above) is that the loosing cards can be mucked and not be exposed.

    Thanks for that. I'm actually very surprised, but maybe that's because any rules I've seen implemented are from the Fitz i.e. with Luke in charge, whose word I take as gospel in these matters.


  • #137
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Hang on a second, Captain freakin' Clarity to the rescue again.

    You lot are clearly debating three ENTIRELY separate issues:

    Situation 1: A showdown occurs between P1 and P2, P2 shows his hand prematurely, P1 folds, which P2 accepts but P3 (who is not in the hand at the end) asks to see the cards.

    My Ruling: This is acceptible on occasion because of the anti collusion rule, however if it was happening from a single player more often then (say) once per night I would want to know why and I would view the hands discretely to confirm or deny collusion if it is being claimed. Abusing this rule is also Angle Grinding imho and I would seek to uphold the rules while styming P3's attempt to gain information he hasnt paid for. This rule is not

    Situation 2: P1 and P2 go to showdown. P2 shows his hand prematurely, P1 folds but P2 asks to see the hand. P2 is entitled to see the hand and the dealer should show it.

    Situation 3: P1 and P2 go to showdown. P2 shows his hand prematurely and P1 fires them into the muck when asked to show (or when he expects he will be asked).

    My Ruling: Explain to P1 he must show his cards or if he is (or maybe asked) to show. On repeat I would warn him that a third repeat will find him cooling his heels on the sidelines for a penalty.

    Mr Fibble, the ruling you quote appears to apply to Situation 1 whereas most people here are discussing sitations 2/3

    DeV.


  • #138
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Bandana boy wrote:
    Alright Dev keep your knickers on

    you state in your post "bad manners" from other players and your solution is to not identify your hand regardless of strength until they show theres

    That in my book is bad ettiquette and a type of slow rolling

    This is why I suggested you read it more carefully. What I am saying is that as a result of being serially slowrolled or denied information I have taken to reverting to the rules and showing in order. I dont slow roll, I expose my hand immediately it is my turn in these situations but I'm not an idiot and if people are taking advantage of my courtesy of showing hands quickly, then I'm going to stop doing it.

    Slowrolling is where you wait and wait giving the impression you have nothing and then showing that you beat an opponent whose cards you can already see or showing one card which has no consequence before waiting and showing a card which makes your hand.

    I fail to see where these are even vaguely similar.

    As I also posted it needs to be put into perpective of what has happened in the hand and the strength of your hand.

    there are times i would do as you suggest but rarely
    Often I will call and state the value of my hand with the call ,I find it keeps the game going and keeps the confrontation nature out of the game

    Just my opinion and try not to take a different point of view so personal in future

    Then try not to make your different point of view so personal.


    DeV.


  • #139
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    fixer wrote:
    you didn't ask to see the hand (which you need to do before the cards are in the muck), you complained that the player put his cards into the muck, and made up some rule that says the dealer should block him from doing that.

    Keep searching, maybe you'll find the "rule" somewhere online. Tell ya what, why not make a webpage of your rules and see if you can get a following?



    Fixer, take the time to read all the posts, and digest them, rather than just shooting off responses aimed at getting reactions.



    I didn't make up any rule, I didn't suggest the dealer should do some sort of Matrix Style move to block the player from dropping his cards in the muck.

    What I did: I did say 'I want to see his hand', I said this as I could see the player had reached over, and was about to drop his hand directly in the muck, which I didn't feel he should do, as his hand was called on the river.

    I wanted the dealer to let him know that he should not do this when called on the river.

    For this reason, I asked for clarification/a ruling FROM the dealer, which he refused to give one, by ignoring me. When it happened a 2nd time, later on, with the same dealer, I asked for a floor person, in the hope of getting clarification on the house rules, again ignored.

    I have not put myself forward as a great authority on the rules.

    But instead you tell me to make up my own webpage, and that I make up my own rules, etc etc,

    You're a clown, all I wanted was confirmation of what the rules were, Is that so much to ask?


    I can guarantee you there is probably not even one tournament director who would condone the actions of the dealer in ignoring a players request for confirmation of the rules, and ignoring the player without explanation on his request for a floor person, and if there are any, they aren't worth their salt.





    You're also contradicting yourself when you say:

    fixer wrote:
    you didn't ask to see the hand (which you need to do before the cards are in the muck)

    Most of what I have said is that the player shouldn't drop his hand directly in the muck, because the few seconds between him folding his hand, and the dealer gathering his cards into the muck, are the already short time frame that a player has to request to see his cards, this player made that time period zero, by his actions.


    All this has already been covered fixer, but you keep coming up with comments that have been countered sufficiently 4 pages ago, maybe you are a bit slower than the rest of us, or maybe you're just not trying very hard.


    Seriously, go back and read everything that has been posted, come back here and post something thought provoking and new that hasn't already been discussed in details, something that makes some sense.

    I almost feel sorry for you that still can't grasp the basics of what is been disputed, like you need some extra tutoring to help you comprehend the discussion and take an active (and hopefuly valid in future) part in it.


  • #140
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Lets keep it civil and non-personal.

    On the point above, every dealer worth his salt (and all the ones I know and respect) approach player complaints the same way. If the player asks for a clarification or for something specific, the dealer will explain the situation. If the player still has a problem, the dealer simply calls for floor and lets them handle the situation. In fact often in the Fitz you will see the dealers read the player as being unhappy but shutting up and politely suggest that they call the floor anyway. Luke told me when I was learning to deal to call him even if I was bleedin' certain and just say "I'm pretty sure thats the rule but let me just check to make certain"... this takes the heat out of the situation as the player isnt calling floor for himself, the *dealer* is in order to "clarify" his rules knowledge. That way, the player doesnt feel like he's causing a scene but also doesnt feel like he's being rode rough shod over by the dealer.

    Its little things like this that bought the Fitz its well deserved reputation over "other" casinos where sometimes you felt like something they had trodden in...

    DeV.


  • #141
    Mr. Flibble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,364 ✭✭✭Mr. Flibble


    DeVore wrote:
    Mr Fibble, the ruling you quote appears to apply to Situation 1 whereas most people here are discussing sitations 2/3
    I don't see why this is the case. I can't deduce that from reading that rule. It just says, in the 1st line, that you don't have a right to see a called hand without mention of the situation. It then offers different rule variations which specific situations with players out of the hand.
    The last line which mentions heads up play makes it clear that called hands don't have to be shown - which doesn't agree with your rulings for situation 2 and 3.

    BTW, I accept that this rule isn't used in the Fitz and prossably the other Irish clubs so we could possibly congratulate each other for our correctness and move onto other problems...? :)


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    I hate to say this but I think its because it seems so commonsensical that they overlooked to mention the case where the requester is actually the caller...

    The phrase "Pay to see" springs to mind.

    DeV.


  • #143
    Mr. Flibble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,364 ✭✭✭Mr. Flibble


    DeVore wrote:
    I hate to say this but I think its because it seems so commonsensical that they overlooked to mention the case where the requester is actually the caller...

    The phrase "Pay to see" springs to mind.

    DeV.

    I think they were trying to do away with that when they wrote the rule. The phrase pay to see would have been born in other types of poker or in holdem where this rule isn't used.

    But, hey. I could be wrong. I might emial MCU to clear it up once and for all.


  • #144
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    IMHumbleO the only fair way to do is if all cards are face up at all times


  • #145
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,698 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Rules should not be assumed to be set in stone. They can vary from room to room, dealer to dealer, situation to situation, etc. As Fibble pointed out in a link that there are alternates each having their merits. Instead viewing rules as Best Practices sometimes has its advantages. Better to view them with a bit of fuzziness and consider them in the light of what is best for the game and general principles (commonsense; etiquette; pay to see; show one, show all; best hand wins; request to higher authority; etc.) That said, how ever the rules are interpreted, fairness and consistency are required.


  • #146
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    tricky D wrote:
    Rules should not be assumed to be set in stone. They can vary from room to room, dealer to dealer, situation to situation, etc. As Fibble pointed out in a link that there are alternates each having their merits. Instead viewing rules as Best Practices sometimes has its advantages. Better to view them with a bit of fuzziness and consider them in the light of what is best for the game and general principles (commonsense; etiquette; pay to see; show one, show all; best hand wins; request to higher authority; etc.) That said, how ever the rules are interpreted, fairness and consistency are required.


    nice tricky! that was like Jerry Springers final thought :-)


  • #147
    kincsem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,012 ✭✭✭kincsem


    Page 216, Big Deal by Anthony Holden

    When I showed my straight, Rabbit's Foot threw away his cards: but they flipped over just short of the muck to reveal a pair of jacks. The dealer took a long, slow look at them while the loser shrugged his shoulders, picked up his rabbit's foot and prepared to leave. He thought he had a pair of jacks. In fact he wound up with a straight higher than mine. At this game, as they say 'cards speak', so the dealer did his duty and pointed out to the departing stranger that he had just won a pot big enough to make him the satellite leader. Me, I was out on the first hand.


  • #148
    denashpot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 277 ✭✭denashpot


    I have played in the macau for nearly 2 years and have played at tables with a lot of different dealers and i must say that 20% of them are terrible. :mad: i know everyone makes mistakes put just 1 could cost you a game. they need to be better trained and should be watched by a td who i must say is never around when you need a ruling!:confused:


  • #149
    mdwexford
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,297 ✭✭✭✭mdwexford


    denashpot wrote:
    I have played in the macau for nearly 2 years and have played at tables with a lot of different dealers and i must say that 20% of them are terrible. :mad: i know everyone makes mistakes put just 1 could cost you a game. they need to be better trained and should be watched by a td who i must say is never around when you need a ruling!:confused:

    have you any examples of how a dealer mistake "cost you a game"??

    i have played in the Macau a good few times and every dealer was top drawer

    should you have 7 tds then, one to watch every table??

    i havent been there in a while but back when Graham was card room manager the tournys were very well run.


  • #150
    Goodluck2me
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Goodluck2me


    mdwexford wrote:
    have you any examples of how a dealer mistake "cost you a game"??.
    by not mucking a folded hand properly and it coming back into play and costing you your stack...
    read this thread again!


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    denashpot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 277 ✭✭denashpot


    mdwexford wrote: »
    have you any examples of how a dealer mistake "cost you a game"??

    i have played in the Macau a good few times and every dealer was top drawer

    should you have 7 tds then, one to watch every table??

    i havent been there in a while but back when Graham was card room manager the tournys were very well run.


    sorry for the late reply.

    things have improved dealer wise over the last year but i still think the td could be more focused on the tournie that running at the time. not his fault duh as i've seen him many times answering the main door and serving people at the bar. never had a dealer mistake affect me thank god.


Advertisement