During HCL’s latest Thirsty Thursday Game, the libations were freely circulating amongst the players, yet amidst the jovial atmosphere, a solitary individual would soon find themselves grappling with the weight of their own misfortune. San Man, a familiar face who has graced the show on multiple occasions, including its recent second-anniversary celebration, found themselves in the unenviable position of committing this expensive blunder.
Simultaneously, the unfolding hand presented an ethical quandary: should the river bet, made under the circumstances, be subject to reconsideration and possibly returned?
PGasia | A Costly Call: Mistaking Six-High for Victory
In a pivotal moment during the game, approximately three and a half hours into the session, the spotlight was on six players as the
10♣/9♥/5♠
flop hit the table. Action unfolded with a check around the table, until Dr. H, seated on the button, decided to inject $1,500 into the pot with a pair of
Q♦/Q♣
With the momentum building, all eyes turned to San Man in the cutoff, who chose to match the bet with a less promising
6♠/4♣
As the
5♥
turn card fell, favoring the pocket queens and adding another $9,000 to the swelling pot, the anticipation heightened with the arrival of the
J♠
river.
In an unexpected twist, Dr. H boldly tossed an additional $14,300 into the center, met with a lightning-fast call from his opponent. In a split second, Dr. H triumphantly unveiled his dominating overpair, clinching the impressive $43,670 prize.
San Man, however, revealed his cards with an exclamation of “Oh yes,” followed by a disheartened “Oh my god,” as the realization set in—a critical error had cost him a staggering $22,000.
“I don’t have a five,” he lamented, shedding light on his decision to reveal his speculative hand at the showdown.
Unfortunately, the situation didn’t improve for San Man as the stream concluded, leaving him with a discouraging deficit of $38,960. In stark contrast, Dr. H reveled in a night that would be forever etched in memory, securing a remarkable six-figure victory—nearly $98,000 more than the closest competitor.
At PGasia, you can enjoy lightning-fast withdrawal of a whopping 10,000 PHP bonus in just 5 minutes! We’re the online casino with the biggest jackpot, and we take your safety and reliability seriously. With countless players hitting the jackpot every day, there’s never been a better time to join in the fun. Don’t hesitate – come play at PGasia today!
Should the Money Be Returned?
The blunder on San Man’s part is undeniably glaring, evident from his immediate snap-call and subsequent reaction, indicating his mistaken belief in holding trips.
This incident prompted an engaging discourse within the live chat, centering on the question of whether the river bet should be reconsidered and potentially returned, given the unmistakable nature of the error. Commentator David Tuchmann joined the conversation, sharing his perspective on the matter.
“In my view, it’s not an obligation for Dr. H to give back the river bet,” Tuchmann remarked. “Nate Hill brought up a point that in a friendly game like this, most individuals might consider doing so. Personally, I would lean towards returning the river bet if I had a solid rapport with the player, even if it was somewhat amicable.”
“I’m not here to criticize Dr. H for his choice. There’s no formal requirement for him to make the return. Nevertheless, in a friendly setting, I’ve witnessed players opting to give back the river bet when the error is as evident as this.”
Multiple voices from the poker community chimed in, adding their perspectives to the unique scenario.
Renowned triple crown winner Niall Farrell expressed his thoughts, stating, “In situations as unequivocal as this, my inclination would be to return the money. The poor soul snapped it off.”
The incident leaves us pondering the intricacies of poker ethics and camaraderie, as players navigate the balance between competition and friendship in the world of high-stakes poker.
Bill Perkins, ever aligned with the philosophy of ‘dying with zero,’ echoed his commitment to this principle by affirming his inclination to grant a refund in such a situation. On the contrary, Allen Cunningham and Kevin Martin held differing views, leaning towards an alternate course of action.
