So I am playing in a local $1-2 NL home game. Big Stack is away from his table for about a half hour so his close relative begins playing his cards for a while (which is generally allowed in our game). Big Stack is maniacal player while relative is fairly tight.

Relative raises to $10 preflop and I call with QJs. Flop comes 7-7-2 rainbow. In the meantime, Big Stack returns to the game but relative continues to play the hand. Relative leads out $15 and I reraise to $45. At that point relative gets up and says to Big Stack "its your money, its your decision." I immediately protest that the hand should be dead, but nobody else at the table seems to agree. Big Stack then makes the call. Turn is a K and I push all in (for about $130, which I was going to do regardless because of the situation). Big Stack thinks and calls, having hit a K with AK. Obviously, there are no cards that can help me.

I again protest that the hand was BS, and that their hand should have been dead when relative got up from the table and I should have gotten the pot after the flop. Only one other person agreed with my POV. Big Stack offered to give me my all in back, which I declined because I felt I should have gotten the pot earlier. The prevailing thought was that I should not have pushed all in, as if that would have made a difference. My thought was that if I continued to complain, its clear I don't have a hand. If I don't go all in, I am losing the pot no matter what. Needless to say, I got the hell out of there and was very pissed.

Is my thinking wrong here? What should have been the ruling? What should I have done?

Thanks!

if they're letting people play each others stacks, then it doesn't really seem like a 'serious' game, and seems pretty casual/fun. With that being said, doesn't surprise me that they let 2 people play that hand. Obv this is against the rules in a regular casino. But clearly this is just a casual homegame, and everyone (well maybe except for you) are ok with this. I would say, find a different, more serious home game to play in. Also, don't bluff a calling station that can't fold AK on 7 high flop

I've played in home games before where someone would get up and the host of the game or someone might ask if he can sit in and play his stack until the player gets back. No one has a problem with it, but the understanding is one player per hand. Which is to say, in your case, if Big Stack came back in the middle of a hand, Other Dude would have to play that hand out before Big Stack could sit back down, and couldn't ask him what he wanted to do, how he'd play it, etc.

If you thought it was bullshit that they traded off in the middle of the hand, you should've been adamant about it on the turn, not gone all-in out of spite, or whatever. Which is what it seems like you did.

I think you should ask yourself honestly if you'd have made the same play had the situation been different.

 

Originally Posted by pharreal87

i think that your thinking is right...it was his money, so if u let somebody else play it for him i think he can take over whenever he's not involved in a hand.

FYP.

Clear violation of one of the most basic rules of poker, 1 player to a hand. If he wants to let someone play his stack while he goes for a smoke or whatever, and the players are cool with it, that's fine, but he can't take over in the middle of the hand... one guy starts the hand, the same guy finishes the hand.

That being said home games sometimes don't follow basic rules like this, usually out of ignorance of what the standard rules really are. Typically going to be the host of the game's call... not right at all but it happens.

 

Originally Posted by Kidd_Deuce

Is my thinking wrong here? What should have been the ruling? What should I have done?

Thanks!

Your thinking is wrong in that the hand isn't dead, it just shouldn't have been allowed to switch players mid hand. But, it's either going to be allowed or not allowed, period... you can not let them switch and then argue that their hand is dead after your bluff fails, nor can you argue it's dead immediately because they're trying to switch players mid hand. That comes off like angle shooting and if it were me, I wouldn't have offered you the all in back. You can argue them switching, but who ever ends up taking control of the hand it's still going to be live.

I'm not accusing you of shooting an angle, I realize you protested immediately before the original stack owner took any action on the flop raise. I'm just saying you have to resolve the dispute immediately right there. Once you acquiesce to the situation and allow him to call the raise and proceed to the turn, the hand is live and you have to accept it for what it is.

What you should have done is not bluffed off the remaining $130 vs. this player once your protest failed and he was allowed to switch back in. Obviously this is a friendly game and no harm meant, since he offered you the $130 back. Which you should have taken, you must not like money.

Cleary I played the hand poorly. I played it that way because of who was initially playing the stack because I've made that move on him a lot with success. That's the issue, in my mind. I never, never play that hand preflop if the big stack is playing the hand start to finish.