I don't care if it was a mistake. You pay your consequences, not only with poker but also in real life. I've had times where I accidentally just put up a blind from cutoff since everyone was limping in but I didn't realize mp+3 raised to $10. I tried to take my blind back and fold because it really was an accident. What happened? Dealer states my $2 stays on the table and I am forced to forfeit whatever went up to the table if I muck. It was truly an accident. But did casino care? No. Consequence I pay for not fully paying attention to the table and mp+3.
You keep saying that's the way it is but the way it is is how it's written in the rules of the
wsop. The rules say that people are punished for their mistakes as written in the rules. So yes it's his fault that he messed up, and he has to pay the punishment written into the rules, not the punishment PoKeRFoRNiA on CC says.
Sure, Koroknai made a mistake. But he should've forfeited all of his chips and been eliminated. You don't just shout out all-in and then muck and pray the floorperson or tournament director will save you. Every year, WSOP tends to have controversies with their rulings and they can't even enforce it properly. Even Losev's case in 2008 against Brandon Cantu. I guess I should start string-betting and have barrels of my chips in motion until I can pick up my villain's tell to test his response whether he is likely to call or fold, and then I'll consider my bet size. Losev's bet should've remained the bet he initially put up there before bringing it back to his stack.
I don't know that particular case and maybe it was an incorrect ruling I don't know. I do know I have played a decent amount of wsop events and seen a lot of controversies and the floors have always done the best job to get the ruling correct according to the rules, and in the case of the guy mucking before the girl called the shove, the floor was simply following the rules. If she didn't like the rules of the wsop maybe she shouldn't have played in the wsop.
They go ok, The game isn't really suitable for most women, in most cases not interested in mathematics and in some cases not aggressive enough or more specifically not so good at controlled aggression, if poker is a game of manipulation and i think in the whole part it is then some women should excel at the game but guess you can't always be correct in poker and that in some cases negates them also but i would have thought the grey area in poker would suit them i know girls that have lived there whole life in the grey area you know the ones, but everyone is different and female poker player's are the best type of person i love you all, there's a point how many did i just make angry? and who has the controlled aggression to give me a good lashing for my in your opinion sexist comments lol read it again, and bring it
Not sure wtf you're even trying to say, but if you think the goal of poker is "controlled aggression" or that x level of aggression is required in poker the game's probably not for you either. Poker is a game where you must make the best decision available to you. I went to a high school program that specialized in math/science/computer science and got a college undergraduate degree in computer science. Although there were more males in those programs than females, I can say there were plenty of females who were more than capable of handling math/logic.
In fact I'd argue the female poker players who are interested enough in poker enough to overstep the cultural barriers (so much more common for men to have a "guys night" playing poker than for females) would probably be more inclined to be better than their average male counterpart who plays.
Anyway idk what the answer is but generalities like your post don't really serve to do anything but promote sexism, so could you either please substantiate your claims or stop posting? Thanks.
