should casino owners be allowed play in there own house

sickpuppy

Wreck your logic is as warped as a dogs hind leg with polio.
You must play with some right goons if you think open folding 3 handed ina multi street pot is seen as normal.

5starpool

Wreck wrote: »

By that logic, checking, betting or raising in turn must also be bad manners as it changes the way the hand plays out, significantly in most cases. I play live fairly regularly, and I've never seen or heard anything to suggest that this is frowned upon.

That is just a daft analogy. Folding in turn when not heads up in a pot is in my books akin to betting out of turn, such is the impact it has on hands.

I'm not saying I have never done it, but unless I am busting to go to the jacks or something I try to wait until the appropriate time to fold.

Wreck

5starpool wrote: »

That is just a daft analogy. Folding in turn when not heads up in a pot is in my books akin to betting out of turn, such is the impact it has on hands.

No its not a daft analogy. You stated that the objection to folding in turn to no bet was bad ettiqutte because it has an effect on how the hand plays out. I merely pointing out that when the action is on someone they have three legit action - check, bet or fold. No matter what action they take it has an impact on the hand.

Comparing it to betting out of turn is the daft analogy, as betting out of turn is not a legitemate action, it's against the rules of the game.

I'm obviously wrong here in that this is seen as bad manners by many players, maybe I just never noticed it before. It must stem from the reaction to people folding out of turn, as I can't for the life of me see how it would arise otherwise.

Oh, and fwiw, I've never done this, and probably never will, simply because it gives free info to others at the table.

mormank

but the significant difference 5star is that betting out of turn isnt frowned upon. it is not allowed, simple as that. but folding in turn IS a valid option. ask any TD.

Macspower

back to the original question. I don't see whole lot wrong with the owner playing if he abides by the same rules as the players.. but in my experience I've found that the owners play by a different set of rules.. we certainly west the shannon in my experience

5starpool

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one by the sounds of it.

Spuca

Folding IN turn is in my opinion fine. Its a valid move, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Ill trade, no-one gets to fold in turn, if no-one is ever EVER allowed hollywood again. Sweet deal.

Also, the reason most staff play in their own casinos is they're banned from playing in others i think. If the casino allows staff to play somewhere else then they shouldn't play in the casino. However some casinos don't like their staff to help the competition so it makes sense.

You can't stop us from playing anywhere in the country. Thats just cruel. We leave that for the Croupiers!

ollyk1

5starpool wrote: »

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one by the sounds of it.

I used to be against it myself for the reasons you've stated Dom but I've actually changed my mind on it over time.

I think guys who are inclined to fold instead of check in turn continue to do it throughout a session and in the long run better players benefit from this more then they lose from letting a guy have a stab from late position with one less player to "get through" the odd time.

It is after all a major tell both when they do it and when they don't do it :rolleyes: and I've very very rarely seen a good player do it so its a good way of categorizing a player in my mind.

thechamp87

it's not against the rules, but i think it's very bad etiquette to open fold. i think you should only ever fold when facing a bet. also, it's just stupid - there's no reason you couldnt win the hand. it really pisses me off.

Ace2007

why would anyone want to fold - if you missed bet....:rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

Lol, this is bad etiquette? Well bad etiquette me up and call me shirly. I think that opinion is nonsense. Each to their own. I'll certainly use one of my 3 options when I want.

daithijjj

lol......my bro and i just had an argument/debate on the fold to no bet issue.......we disagree on it lol............he says its not a problem, i say it can be seen as collusion. It could be seen as 1 player (the player who folded) is in collusion with one of the other players left in the pot in an attempt to push the other player out.........for eg, player 1 bets into me and my "colluder", i reraise, my "colluder" calls (with rubbish). Where this then leaves the player 1 with an almost impossible task if he/she didnt have the nuts......................it can be seen as collusion, full stop, no iffs no buts.

Rod & Reel

can we keep to the issue here ppl.

Goodluck2me

daithijjj wrote: »

lol......my bro and i just had an argument/debate on the fold to no bet issue.......we disagree on it lol............he says its not a problem, i say it can be seen as collusion. It could be seen as 1 player (the player who folded) is in collusion with one of the other players left in the pot in an attempt to push the other player out.........for eg, player 1 bets into me and my "colluder", i reraise, my "colluder" calls (with rubbish). Where this then leaves the player 1 with an almost impossible task if he/she didnt have the nuts......................it can be seen as collusion, full stop, no iffs no buts.

thats nothign to do with folding first. wtf?

hotspur

I have been very happy to have dealers playing at my tables, it's not that they are worse than the average punter as players, but in my experience they have a greater tendency to get involved in action probably because playing a patient game is too similar to working. This tendency is completely understandable but requires a higher level of skill to pull off. It is arguable that it requires a level of skill such that having it would likely preclude one from bothering to deal for financial reasons. Hence dealers = value imo.

FeetMagic

OP is this a club in Galway? If its the club Im thinking of you should be happy to have the owner playing!!

daithijjj

goodluck2me wrote: »

thats nothign to do with folding first. wtf?

your not quite getting the point here........i just gave an example of how folding to no bet can be construed as collusion. In the original example, the player first to act folded, this can also be construed as collusion if the colluders have signals whereby one of them has got the nuts and has signalled to his friend that he has the pot. This is a simple explanation of why folding to no bet is bad etiquette, not to mention a stupid thing to do in the first place. However i can understand it if the player in question is a rookie player.

getting back to the real question, its not a problem for casino staff to play in there own workplace but its not going to improve the business. If the owner is relying on himself or his staff to play to keep things ticking over then he is just a bad businessman. I can also understand it if there isnt another casino in the area, in any case, it will be difficult to get new business. Ive played in casinos in england for 8 years, generally the staff cant set foot in the place when they are not at work and im not just talking about dealers, not even the waitresses can be there when its not theyre shift.

poker--addict

i see poker rarely in live cash games...

however iv seen an owner play twice....and hit poker twice...both within 10 hands of sitting down..

luck?!?!even if it is it sure does smell......and i know people think this too..and as a result think twice before puttin their cash down...:eek:

Lazare

daithijjj wrote: »

your not quite getting the point here........i just gave an example of how folding to no bet can be construed as collusion. In the original example, the player first to act folded, this can also be construed as collusion if the colluders have signals whereby one of them has got the nuts and has signalled to his friend that he has the pot.
.

Explain how open folding is more beneficial to a pair of colluders than check folding.

daithijjj

Lazare wrote: »

Explain how open folding is more beneficial to a pair of colluders than check folding.

can you point out where i said it was beneficial? i didnt, i said it was a stupid thing to do. Perhaps it was a rookie move, ive seen that happen at some fish markets. The point is, it CAN be contrued as collusion by other players, that is why there is a notion called ETIQUETTE.

Lazare

daithijjj wrote: »

can you point out where i said it was beneficial? i didnt, i said it was a stupid thing to do. Perhaps it was a rookie move, ive seen that happen at some fish markets. The point is, it CAN be contrued as collusion by other players, that is why there is a notion called ETIQUETTE.

Fair point. My bad.

Goodluck2me

daithijjj wrote: »

your not quite getting the point here........i just gave an example of how folding to no bet can be construed as collusion. In the original example, the player first to act folded, this can also be construed as collusion if the colluders have signals whereby one of them has got the nuts and has signalled to his friend that he has the pot. This is a simple explanation of why folding to no bet is bad etiquette, not to mention a stupid thing to do in the first place. However i can understand it if the player in question is a rookie player.

this is no relevance whatsoever to anything to do with the case in question, you might as well say you can only tap the table once when checking as double taps could mean you have the nuts, or singing when in a hand or ordering drinks or w/e. they are all just as easily if not much easier and less obvious ways to get a signal across than open folding.

why did you give an example of no betting as collusion when that had no relevance to the OP? I could give you an example of speech-play as collusion would that help?

mormank

just asked about open folding in the crown casino last night. they allow it.

daithijjj

goodluck2me wrote: »

thats nothign to do with folding first. wtf?

first of all, theres no need to get pedantic over this. the OP, indeed, has nothing to do with open folding but you were the one seeking explanation for my comment on that, via the quote above. My bad for going off the topic but you were seeking an explanation, were you not?.........if you are prepared to quote me, then ask a question, and are not prepared to listen to the answer, then the problem is not mine, sorry.

mormank

you gonna let him talk to you like that GL2M??? :P

Goodluck2me

daithijjj wrote: »

first of all, theres no need to get pedantic over this. the OP, indeed, has nothing to do with open folding but you were the one seeking explanation for my comment on that, via the quote above. My bad for going off the topic but you were seeking an explanation, were you not?.........if you are prepared to quote me, then ask a question, and are not prepared to listen to the answer, then the problem is not mine, sorry.

You gave an irrelevant reason for the above problem, I just failed to see how the two collated? It was simply up to you whether or not you wanted to give a viable related option or not.
I just don't see how it can be construed as collusion. Educate me.

daithijjj

"You gave an irrelevant reason for the above problem, I just failed to see how the two collated? It was simply up to you whether or not you wanted to give a viable related option or not.
I just don't see how it can be construed as collusion. Educate me."

---

Is etiquette irrelevant?...............failing that, im not in the habit of repeating myself in the same thread. The idea of open folding in this case, is completely hypothetical and situational. Lets just say you an I are friends and everyone at the table knows we are. Between us in the pot is mr. X. If i check the turn, mr x raises, you reraise AND I CALL. Mr x calls and we all see the river. At this point, it could be construed by other players at the table as you and me trying to 'squeeze' mr x out of the pot. I then, open fold. I never stated that this action was against the rules, i merely stated it would be a stupid move and could possibly be seen by other players, as you and me colluding. I also never said it was beneficial, as it would possibly/probably change the equation of how the hand is played out...........i hope thats clearer?.........if not, lets just agree to disagree on etiquette.

Hectorjelly

I think the issue is a bit more complicated than presented up until this point. Its very different for a player to throw away his useless cards on the flop in a multiway pot, than to open fold on the river 3 way.

Also, anything that speeds up play should be encouraged.

mormank

not being allowed to open fold will not stop this kind of colluding anyway!! and if the above hand does aoccur what is the difference between open folding in turn and just mucking your cards at the showdown!! none i believe. so the colluding argument simply doesnt stand imo.

as for etiquette. well that is just your opinion, i do not think it is bad etiquette. it is far worse for somebody to get up and leave the table when he has cards and before it is his turn to fold, far worse imo and yet this happens in card rooms and big tournies all around the country on a daily basis!!

H8GHOTI

daithijjj wrote: »

.....Lets just say you and I are friends....

No sorry, you've completely lost me now