what is the proper way to handle this situation?

PoWdA wrote: Unfortunatly the dealer school I went to closed down so I can't call them.

well if they were graduating people like Danny, should this be a surprise to anyone?

idh78 wrote:

PoWdA wrote: Unfortunatly the dealer school I went to closed down so I can't call them.

well if they were graduating people like Danny, should this be a surprise to anyone?

lol

Actually the owners wife had MS, she was fired as a BJ dealer up the hill right around the time the owner Dave was offered a pit boss job in some far off land and they kinda bounced out on everything. It was a cool place with a lot of cool people, I miss it.

well I heard back from both of them....one pretty much said what Danny was saying about the stub etc....dead hand.

the other said if there are either 2 calls or one raise that is enough action that the hand must be played out...


this might be one of those bizarre situations that gets a different ruling by different floor people/casinos.

idh78 wrote:
the other said if there are either 2 calls or one raise that is enough action that the hand must be played out...

This is substantial action. If substantial action has occurred the hand must go on however we need to define substantial action.

Can someone google "substantial action" and find out if calling is an action or not?

I am a little rusty but I know a raise is an action, but there must be 2 actions for substantial action to occur. This is a fact. The question is wether or not calling is actually considered an "action" ( I might be confusing checking as not being considered an action). Furthermore I kill this hand everytime unless the deck is just sitting on top of the muck pile AND substantial action has occurred and the deck can easily and clearly be retrieved. If the cards have been partially shuffled the hand cannot continue as there are now mucked cards that may appear on the board.

I don't even think it is close. The fact that the muck was shuffled into the stub makes this a no-brainer dead hand.

substantial action means where two or more players have acted on their hands.

this is pretty vague, but it is all I could find....I would agree that checking wouldn't qualify but here we have a raise and call so I think this hand qualifies as substantial action.

idh78 wrote:substantial action means where two or more players have acted on their hands.

this is pretty vague, but it is all I could find....I would agree that checking wouldn't qualify but here we have a raise and call so I think this hand qualifies as substantial action.

I know what substantial action is, asshole, I want to clarify wether or not a call constitutes an "action" or not. the more I think about it the more I am getting flipped around and thinking that calling is an action.

<--- still kills this hand dead due to the re-shuffling with the muck part of things.

WTG bavid.

Seems to me a call would absolutely have to be considered an action, as it involves voluntarily putting chips into a pot.

I'm glad that I could create such an interesting situation.

Stay tuned for next month's installment after I accidentally shuffle two decks together and deal 4 players pocket aces then proceed to put 5 Kings on the board.

Stallion wrote:I'm glad that I could create such an interesting situation.

Stay tuned for next month's installment after I accidentally shuffle two decks together and deal 4 players pocket aces then proceed to put 5 Kings on the board.

The way you deal, there would be 6 kings on the board...

dexman1349 wrote:

Stallion wrote:I'm glad that I could create such an interesting situation.

Stay tuned for next month's installment after I accidentally shuffle two decks together and deal 4 players pocket aces then proceed to put 5 Kings on the board.

The way you deal, there would be a 7, a deuce, an uno card, a ticket for "soliciting sex from an underage minority trans-gender prostitute", and a get out of jail free card from Monopoly on the board...

FYP

Much better. The only other thing to add would be that the 7 would be from a large index Bridge deck and the deuce is from a "peek" poker deck.

dexman1349 wrote:Much better. The only other thing to add would be that the 7 would be from a large index Bridge deck and the deuce is from a "peek" poker deck.

I didn't add that but I did add "transgender" and "underage". We are talking about bavid here....

PoWdA wrote: We are talking about bavid here....

I still haven't figured out who here rhymes with bavid... But once I do, I will definately give him shit for all of this...

dexman1349 wrote:

PoWdA wrote: We are talking about bavid here....

I still haven't figured out who here rhymes with bavid... But once I do, I will definately give him shit for all of this...

Agreed. I have decided to jsut talk about this Bavid guy until we find out who it is. I personally think he is asian and needs to go to Piflers to play bar poker tonight. Either that or he is a white dude that is incredibly mediocre at poker. (the rest of the forum)

It's gotta be one of those 2.

If I figure out who you guys are talking about I'll probably beat him up just for good measure.