Play a F'ing Hand Already

Ok I don't feel like working right now so here's some thoughts on "playing hands." This is in reference to the somewhat increasing frequency of suggestions like, "why don't you play a hand?" Or, "Why don't you play a mother f'ing hand you rat prick."

When someone is losing, the amount of hands they play does not seem to be much of a concern. However, when that individual is winning, each fold seems to be an agonizing experience for the table. This happens despite the fact that the same person is not playing any more or less hands then they were when they were down. And really, if they play more hands and win then no one is going to be pleased with that. It seems that a more appropriate suggestion would be, "why don't you lose some money" or, "why don't you throw 200 in the pot and muck?" Just asking for the person to execute the unfortunately seldom used call-muck move would more accurately express what you really want. A more realistic and reasonable request would be to ask the person to put in a straddle now and then.

Half the players that complain about this issue are no different at all. Gayerplayer, for example, will specifically call out other people for not playing hands to distract the rest of the table from the fact that he won't be caught dead in the pot without A,2, wheel, non-nine, suited. What is the requisite percentage of hands to play? And, which players are playing this percentage? I limp in with some of the sh!ttyest trash ever. I've got no doubt in my mind that I could give one person in particular three of the hands that I limp in with and let him pick out his best four cards and he'd still fold them pre-flop.

There is an exceptron that will remain nameless. If somrone is so tight that they ronsider A,A,2,9 to be too crappy to play, then the aforementroned comments are on point. There should be a certain sordid shame that accompanies this degree of tight.