I discovered a game in my local and tonight was my second visit. The organisers are local and there's a nice friendly vibe as you would get. I'm not starting this thread as a stick to beat them, but instead to perhaps give them a different perspective of a ruling that they made during the cash table. While I agree they are entitled to make the ruling as they see fit, I do feel this ruling should be reviewed by themselves as does any ruling of controversy to allow them to continue their progression as poker organisers.
Please bear in mind that I am deaf and although I do feel I got the gist of what was being said during the incident, I am unable to be specific. Although there's nothing wrong with my eyesight and I shall describe what I saw.
It involves three players whom we shall call Jon, Vince and Ned.
Jon - has everyone covered. I've seen him play poker a good few years so he's no fool and would have a good idea of the rules.
However previously there was an incident in which he was in a pot with another guy who had position on him. He bet on the river which had 4 hearts, and the other guy pushed. Jon then threw down his cards which revealed he had a flush and then called seconds later, winning the pot.
I felt that was a sneaky angle shoot but this being a social game, no fuss was made and everybody just got on with the game.
Now onto the hand itself which happened about an hour later, I wasn't paying much attention to the stack sizes and the texture of the flop and turn.
Their positions were Jon - EP, Vince - MP and Ned – LP. On the turn Vince went all in and was called by Ned and Jon who had him covered easily.
After the river was dealt, there were 4 hearts on the board, and the action was on Jon. Instead of checking/betting, he turned over his hand holding 10h. Suddenly there's a bit of commotion and although I couldn't exactly follow what the dealer was saying - I understood that he had ruled that Jon had forfeited his right to the pot by turning over his hand. Ned and Vince turn over their hands and Vince is awarded the pot although he had a lesser hand than Jon.
I piped up and voiced my opinion. Firstly I told Jon that I believed he was angle shooting when he turned over his hand and that it was the 2nd time he had done it tonight. Despite this, I told the dealer I felt that the pot should be awarded to him because the cards speak and that there was no disputing Jon had the best hand.
Jon strongly disagreed with the ruling and cashed out immediately. As I said earlier, I can't follow group conversations but the general gist was the dealer made the ruling and that was that, everybody just moved on. Unfortunately it was still bugging me so a few hands later, I asked the dealer how come that rule wasn't applied in the first incident Jon was involved in. Unfortunately I couldn't follow his reply but to me the two incidents were similar. I think it makes for a dangerous precedent and I hope the organisers review this ruling and take on board other people's opinions.
Please bear in mind that I am deaf and although I do feel I got the gist of what was being said during the incident, I am unable to be specific. Although there's nothing wrong with my eyesight and I shall describe what I saw.
It involves three players whom we shall call Jon, Vince and Ned.
Jon - has everyone covered. I've seen him play poker a good few years so he's no fool and would have a good idea of the rules.
However previously there was an incident in which he was in a pot with another guy who had position on him. He bet on the river which had 4 hearts, and the other guy pushed. Jon then threw down his cards which revealed he had a flush and then called seconds later, winning the pot.
I felt that was a sneaky angle shoot but this being a social game, no fuss was made and everybody just got on with the game.
Now onto the hand itself which happened about an hour later, I wasn't paying much attention to the stack sizes and the texture of the flop and turn.
Their positions were Jon - EP, Vince - MP and Ned – LP. On the turn Vince went all in and was called by Ned and Jon who had him covered easily.
After the river was dealt, there were 4 hearts on the board, and the action was on Jon. Instead of checking/betting, he turned over his hand holding 10h. Suddenly there's a bit of commotion and although I couldn't exactly follow what the dealer was saying - I understood that he had ruled that Jon had forfeited his right to the pot by turning over his hand. Ned and Vince turn over their hands and Vince is awarded the pot although he had a lesser hand than Jon.
I piped up and voiced my opinion. Firstly I told Jon that I believed he was angle shooting when he turned over his hand and that it was the 2nd time he had done it tonight. Despite this, I told the dealer I felt that the pot should be awarded to him because the cards speak and that there was no disputing Jon had the best hand.
Jon strongly disagreed with the ruling and cashed out immediately. As I said earlier, I can't follow group conversations but the general gist was the dealer made the ruling and that was that, everybody just moved on. Unfortunately it was still bugging me so a few hands later, I asked the dealer how come that rule wasn't applied in the first incident Jon was involved in. Unfortunately I couldn't follow his reply but to me the two incidents were similar. I think it makes for a dangerous precedent and I hope the organisers review this ruling and take on board other people's opinions.
) A player who exposes his cards with action pending may incur a penalty, but will not have a dead hand. The penalty will begin at the end of the hand.
Comment