Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ruling from the IPO

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ruling from the IPO

    I thought this one was going to end up here and since it didn't I've decided i'd put it up myself.

    At the beginning of each starting day at the IPO I announce that we were using TDA rules with the exception of...

    16: Showdown Order & 46: Accepted Action

    On Day 1C (i think) a player comes up to at the start of the dinner break. The last hand before the dinner break he was involved in the following hand.

    I'm not sure what the blinds were or were the button was. I believe the button was in seats 2-4 but it's not important.

    Preflop action is folded to seat 8 who goes all-in for 9,200, seat 9 folds, seat 10 goes all in for approx 80k, seat 1 folds, seat 2 places 2 x 5k (he has approx 65k) chips into the pot and this then brought to his attention that seat 10 has gone all for for 80k (which covers him).

    Seat 2 goes to fold and leaves his chips out there.

    The floor is call he is forced to call the all-in bet. Player in seat 2 questions the ruling and is clearly not happy about it. He has pocket 5's, seat 10 Aces and he is knocked out of the tournament.

    If I was called I would have ruled differently. I would have left the 9,200 in the pot and given the option to call or fold.

    Seat 2 finds me during the break and asks me about the ruling.

    What would you do?

    BTW this rule is covered by Accepted Action.
    €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
    Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
    €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
    CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

    #2
    i would have done the same thing as you as his intention was obviously to call the 1st all in. player w AA could argue that once the chips go in he has made the call. think its a very harsh ruling, TD at time should have taken into account his intentions imo

    Comment


      #3
      Had the exact same thing happen on my table and the ruling was that he loses the chips he put into the pot and could fold his hand and retain the rest of his stack.

      Not a fan of the initial ruling but DEFINITELY not a fan of different TD's making different rulings at the same event
      Go big or go homeless.

      Comment


        #4
        As long as he didn't say call or anything to that effect, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to fold here and forfeit his 9,200 in the middle.

        Forcing him to put money into the pot is harsh, and pretty strange imo.

        What would the TD have done if, when he heard seat 10 was all-in, he actually mucked his hand (I assume when he folded it wasn't properly mucked).

        Comment


          #5
          I would contact Boylepoker and try and get him a refund or free into next years event.

          Comment


            #6
            I can't resist JP, what would strict Tda application be here ( let's assume he didn't mutter call). As is I'm doing it your way " in the interest of the game " but it really comes back to rules being interpreted by the Ref (TD) on the day. I don't think the TD was wrong here but yours would be better at the level we were playing I guess . Again tho it was a great event although I think 4 flushes should be banned from the game :-)
            Cheers Liam
            Atlantis Events Beat The Boss Saturday 7th Mar @5pm €5,000 Gtd The Dolmen Carlow

            Comment


              #7
              If he said 'call' fair enough but he didn't, what a terrible ruling.
              His actions were transparent yet TD is forcing the rest of his chips into the pot.
              How easy would common sense have been here, what a sick way to go out.
              Middle Ireland gets screwed again.

              Comment


                #8
                The player in question talked to me at the break immediately after the incident ...... and he told me, which is an important variant, that the 2nd guy who went all in with the 80k approx, did not, and was not asked, to move ANY chips forward or across the line immediately, or at any time, after his "all in" annoucement
                Last edited by westlife; 07-11-14, 19:09.
                D15 CASINO, Mulhuddart Village (opp Blanchardstown shopping centre)

                Comment


                  #9
                  Would the same ruling had been made if, for arguments sake, the blinds were 50/100 and a guy raises to 200, next guy goes allin for 30k, and our 'hero' throws out 200 to call. Would he be made call the 30k? Seems very harsh

                  For those that don't know, can you explain rule 46 to us JP, and why you chose not to use it? Is it for pretty much this exact reason?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Bubbleboy View Post
                    If he said 'call' fair enough but he didn't, what a terrible ruling.
                    His actions were transparent yet TD is forcing the rest of his chips into the pot.
                    How easy would common sense have been here, what a sick way to go out.
                    Middle Ireland gets screwed again.
                    Was thinking about this and forgot to post.

                    What's the difference with actually saying 'call' and throwing in the extra chip? He could just have meant call the 9,200. People often throw in one chip to call an all-in.

                    I think Phil's point is what changes it, player wasn't aware chap moved all in because he didn't push stack out/wasn't made to push stack out. If it was and he threw the extra chip in I have no problem with the ruling. People should pay attention

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Flushdraw View Post
                      Would the same ruling had been made if, for arguments sake, the blinds were 50/100 and a guy raises to 200, next guy goes allin for 30k, and our 'hero' throws out 200 to call. Would he be made call the 30k? Seems very harsh

                      For those that don't know, can you explain rule 46 to us JP, and why you chose not to use it? Is it for pretty much this exact reason?
                      Hi Tony,

                      Rule 46: Accepted Action
                      Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or players. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or players, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. As with all tournament situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion.

                      In a nutshell means once you place chips in the pot your accepting the action in front of you regardless of what you've been told by dealer (even if you've asked for a chipcount and the dealer has made a gross miscount).

                      It's a rule which I've discussed with some of the best and brighest TD's out there. Some like the rule some dislike the rule. Most of those who like the rule do so as they believe it's the players responsibility to know the action in front of them.

                      While the situation above didn't involve the player requesting a chip count and getting an incorrect chip count from the dealer. My main reasons for not using this rule are I feel it's not player friendly and that it contradicts with Rule 2:

                      2: Player Responsibilities
                      Players are expected to verify registration data and seat assignments, protect their hands, make their intentions clear, follow the action, act in turn, defend their right to act, keep cards visible, keep chips correctly stacked, remain at the table with a live hand, speak up if they see a mistake being made, transfer tables promptly, follow one player to a hand, know and comply with the rules, follow proper etiquette, and generally contribute to an orderly tournament.

                      I.e. the all-in player should speak up if he see's the dealer making a mistake with his chip count and inform the caller of the correct amount or tell the dealer that the count is wrong.

                      The above situation is also covered by rule 37: Verbal Bet Declarations / Acting in Turn / Undercalls which was rightly pointed out to me by Glen Doyle as it's an undercall.

                      An undercall (betting less than the current call amount) is a mandatory
                      full call if made facing an opening bet multi-way on any betting round,


                      Both Rule 37 and 46 say Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion which I'm normally not a big fan of as it creates doubt over the how TDA wishs to you proceed.


                      Back to the ruling in hand
                      As westlife said the 2nd all-in player didn't put his chips into the pot, but both he and the dealer did announce all-in.


                      The situation happened during the last hand before dinner break so no more hands were dealt before it was brought to my attention. .

                      In the end I overruled the original ruling, and refunded the player his chips.

                      It's decision I did't take lightly and thought long and hard about for the full 1hr dinner break.

                      Would I have heard about the hand if it had ended differently? Possibly not!

                      But as I explained to the table at the time the original rule was not in accordance with the rules in play at the event which were announced at the beginning of each of the starting days and so I felt it was the correct rule to make.
                      €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                      Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                      €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                      CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                      Comment


                        #12
                        That's a horrible ruling and I really dislike the part about if you ask a dealer for a count of a players stack and they as you put it "grossly miscount it" horrid stuff, TD's are always going on about players must make their intentions known and in a situation like that you can still end up being penalised for acting with due dillagence.
                        "you raise, i kill you" El Tren :{)

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I'm just going to give my opinion on this situation for what it's worth.

                          As stated by JP, I very briefly had a chat about this particular rule and this situation.
                          If I was called to the table for this ruling this is my view.

                          I said to JP about utilizing rule number 37 of the TDA (the ruleset we used) and it is as follows:

                          37: Verbal Bet Declarations / Acting in Turn / Undercalls
                          A: Players must act in turn. Verbal betting declarations in turn are binding. Chips put in the pot in turn stay in the pot. An undercall (betting less than the current call amount) is a mandatory full call if made facing an opening bet multi-way on any betting round, or facing any bet heads up. In all other situations, TD’s discretion applies. For purposes of this rule, in blind games the posted BB is the opening bet on the first round.

                          In this instance the player in question didn't make a verbal declaration of call (bolded part)
                          The play however placed chips into the pot and as the rules states clearly chips put into the pot stay in the pot (red part)
                          Also the rule states an undercall is a mandatory call if made facing an opening bet multi-way. The main term here being opening bet (green part). The player whose action it on wasn't calling the opening bet (or wasn't meant to be as the situation arose) so I'm not making him make a full call.
                          After explaining these three sections of the rule to the players at the table, I'm giving the player in question the option to sacrifice the 9,200 and fold or let him call the full amount (80K)

                          The player is getting enough of a penalty (9,200 chips) for not paying attention to the game if he does decide to fold.
                          Last edited by GlennDoyle; 09-11-14, 20:55. Reason: Forgot a part

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by tylerdurden94 View Post
                            That's a horrible ruling and I really dislike the part about if you ask a dealer for a count of a players stack and they as you put it "grossly miscount it" horrid stuff, TD's are always going on about players must make their intentions known and in a situation like that you can still end up being penalised for acting with due dillagence.
                            100% Agree Danny.

                            The part about the dealer gross miscount is just terrible.

                            But I guess that's why TDA included Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion. I'd just prefer is it wasn't in there at all.

                            The problem (and ruling) originates from players throwing 1 chip into the pot to call a big bet or all-in wager.
                            €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                            Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                            €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                            CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                            Comment


                              #15
                              There's a lot of TD's that are sticklers and it's refreshing to see you make a difficult choice but the correct one, it's probably not seen as the best to overrule another TD as 99% of the time you have to show a united front.
                              "you raise, i kill you" El Tren :{)

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Atlantispoker View Post
                                As is I'm doing it your way " in the interest of the game " but it really comes back to rules being interpreted by the Ref (TD) on the day. I don't think the TD was wrong here but yours would be better at the level we were playing I guess .
                                Cheers Liam
                                JP specifically excluded TDA rule 46 which deals with accepted action, so the original TD was wrong here to apply that rule here. And also why JP was correct to reverse that ruling, imo.
                                Originally posted by JP Poker View Post
                                The above situation is also covered by rule 37: Verbal Bet Declarations / Acting in Turn / Undercalls which was rightly pointed out to me by Glen Doyle as it's an undercall.

                                An undercall (betting less than the current call amount) is a mandatory
                                full call if made facing an opening bet multi-way on any betting round,
                                I would disagree that it's an undercall, at least in the sense that rule 37 is protecting against, and describing in brackets. Reason being, the player wasn't trying to make a bet, he was calling. The rule is there so that if a players tries to bet unaware of a previous slightly bigger bet, he is committed to the correct call.
                                Also, as Glen Doyle pointed out above, it wasn't an opening bet.

                                As for the hand, I think you were completely right in your decision to reverse the ruling. Always a tricky situation when you are not there to make the call instantly. Even if the rules was reversed the full hour after it happened, I don't think the player with AA has any grounds to complain, at the time he surely knew he was being gifted extra chips by forcing the call.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by JP Poker View Post
                                  In the end I overruled the original ruling, and refunded the player his chips.

                                  It's decision I did't take lightly and thought long and hard about for the full 1hr dinner break.

                                  Would I have heard about the hand if it had ended differently? Possibly not!

                                  But as I explained to the table at the time the original rule was not in accordance with the rules in play at the event which were announced at the beginning of each of the starting days and so I felt it was the correct rule to make.
                                  Am I right in thinking that the player who won the pot was forced to return the excess chips , over the 9,200? Seems the only one punished in that situation was the winning player. If he loses he's forced to give up 60k and when he wins it's only for the smaller amount? Definitly don't think i'd be happy if I'd won the hand and was forced to return the chips knowing if he'd won I was losing 60k of my stack.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by LTL View Post
                                    Am I right in thinking that the player who won the pot was forced to return the excess chips , over the 9,200? Seems the only one punished in that situation was the winning player. If he loses he's forced to give up 60k and when he wins it's only for the smaller amount? Definitly don't think i'd be happy if I'd won the hand and was forced to return the chips knowing if he'd won I was losing 60k of my stack.
                                    Very good question.

                                    As I mentioned this happened during the last hand before dinner break and so I had the luxury to think long and hard about the ruling before I made it, and got to think about all the different possibilities (this been one of them).

                                    As I said to the table if the outcome was difference and the player who went all in for 80k questioned the ruling at the time and then seat 2 won the hand yes I would have over ruled the the original ruling just as I did with seat 8 winning the hand.

                                    The wrong rule as per the tournament rules in place was made. The player questioned the ruling at the time. I think over ruling the original rule was correct decision to make.
                                    Last edited by JP Poker; 10-11-14, 20:50.
                                    €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                                    Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                                    €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                                    CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by JP Poker View Post
                                      Very good question.

                                      As I mentioned this happened during the last hand before dinner break and so I had the luxury to think long and hard about the ruling before I made it, and got to think about all the different possibilities (this been one of them).

                                      As I said to the table if the outcome was difference and the player who went all in for 80k questioned the ruling at the time and then seat 2 won the hand yes I would have over ruled the the original ruling just as I did with seat 8 winning the hand.

                                      The wrong rule as per the tournament rules in place was made. The player questioned the ruling at the time. I think over ruling the original rule was correct decision to make.
                                      I guess what I'm getting at is that if I'd accepted the ruling, and then lost I'd personally never change my take on it and complain. So to me , personally, if I was the winning player I would have nothing to gain and feel I was effectively free-rolled.

                                      I'd a similar ruling on my table at the 6 max, where a stack shoves and it's folded to Sb who puts in a min raise missing the shove. BB folds and the shoving stack turns his hand over thinking he's called. Rudi forced the Sb to call. Do you make Sb call there?

                                      For what it's worth , I prefer your take on it but my issue is it can open it up for angles with the whole throwing in a single small chip to represent a call being used a lot at the moment.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        I agree with the general consensus that you were right.

                                        I know it's the player's responsibilty to be aware of the action, but that can sometimes be difficult, particularly if you are seated in seat 1. Often in seat 1 your view of seat 10 (or 9 in a 9 handed table) is blocked by the dealer to some extent, so I think it's very important for the dealer to make seat 1 aware of changes to the action by seat 9 or 10.

                                        Also, it's not great practice for the dealer not to make the all in player push some representative stack over the line (in the absence of a specific All-In chip) and instead just rely on verbal declaration, not everybody has good hearing.

                                        I have sympathy for seat 2 in your example above, but I'd have less sympathy if he missed the all-in because he had headphones on and wasn't paying attention.

                                        Just curious as to whether your decision would have been different if the all-in had been physical pushing chips over the line, or if the seat lack of awareness was due to headphones/smartphone usage?

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          The player is question said he heard no declaration from player or dealer.... I think his actions prove he did not hear. That is not to say it did not happen.. Just that he did not hear it. If he was in seat 2 and the "all in" is seat 7 than there is a good distance between 2 players in a very busy and noisy poker room. Toby Stone told me a few years ago that poker is a visual game and you must pay attention to the action (in ref to an incident back then were I was in seat 1 against a player in seat 10 ....bla bla bla). So, because the chips were not put into the centre by the dealer (Gareth, don't even go there)......... Shouldn't the player have been given the benefit of the doubt straight away because of this inaction?
                                          D15 CASINO, Mulhuddart Village (opp Blanchardstown shopping centre)

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            I was at this table when incident happened, dealer did say all-in for seat 10, I'm not sure if seat 2 said call when putting in his chips and if i recall right he did seem surprised with the bigger all-in and he wasn't wearing headphones. My beef with ruling is that seat 2 is well known around the Dublin circuit and obliviously approached JP during the break but if he had won the hand 1- JP would not have been approached about the action and outcome and 2- if incident was against another player at table they would have taken floor TD's decision and been at the bar, playing cash or in side tourney. I was late back fro dinner break and didn't hear JP's ruling.
                                            Last edited by winkey66; 11-11-14, 13:15.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              I think really it dosen't matter exatly how this hand played out, things happen and at the end of the day the Ruling wasn't wrong it was just a bit harsh for both the big all in and the player that was forced to complete. He is responsable for his action and so can be forced in, but the better decision in the interest of the game would have been to give him the option. Who the players were dosen't matter and the fact that another TD would have ruled differently is really the bit to focus on for the IPO to take account of going forward ( More detail in the floor meeting before the event guys ^-^ )
                                              Atlantis Events Beat The Boss Saturday 7th Mar @5pm €5,000 Gtd The Dolmen Carlow

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                If seat 2 felt that strongly that 1st ruling was wrong why wasn't JP called before the hand played out. I do believe that if seat 2 had won hand JP would not have been called to make a ruling and I do really believe that is player specific for this table. The ruling may have been right but the way hand went seat 2 had 2 shots at it. Also if this had not been last hand before break and another hand had already started what would ruling have been ?

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  JP you obviously know your rules better than us so I have to assume that the ruling to allow Seat 2 to leave 9200 out and fold (keeping the remainder of his stack) would have been the correct one. It also does seem the fairest.

                                                  However, once the initial ruling is made and the flop is dealt then surely the action has changed and you as TD cannot interfere?

                                                  If you had made your ruling pre the flop then Seat 2 would have had 2 options:
                                                  1) Call off the remainder
                                                  2) Fold and leave the 9200 in the pot
                                                  The fact is that he didn't get this option. It doesn't matter what you think he'd have done or what he says he'd have done, the fact is the action changed and after this fact you over ruled the initial ruling. I think this is wrong and IMO the player holding AA was extremely hard done by.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    Originally posted by Gimmeabreak
                                                    Error 1 - first all in player not putting out his chips
                                                    Error 2 - dealer not ensuring that the chips were out before moving the action to the next player
                                                    Error 3 - seat 2 wasn't paying attention and didn't hear all in declared by player and dealer
                                                    Error 4 - initial ruling
                                                    Error 5 - the playing of god and the overruling of the initial ruling after very substantial action

                                                    This is what you pay your reg fee for folks, this is the standard that poker players have accepted in return for expensive rake here in Ireland. Who the hell would want to play poker when so many errors can be made in the same hand?

                                                    The TDA rulebook seems an irrelevance because it seems it is all succeeded by a rule which says the TD can do whatever the hell he feels like and can do that at his own discretion, so long as he rules it in the fairness of the game, of course you have to rely on that TD being capable of making balanced and fair decisions and their interpretation of the fairness of the game actually being fair.

                                                    Are there any rules out there the TDA rulebook in relation to action having taken place and/or the passage of time? Or does it even matter if you can just do whatever you feel like?


                                                    TDA rules 21/22.
                                                    21: Disputed Pots
                                                    The right to dispute a hand ends when a new
                                                    hand begins. See Rule 22.

                                                    General Procedures

                                                    22: New Hand & New Limits
                                                    When time has elapsed in a round and a new
                                                    level is announced, the new level applies to the next hand. A hand begins with the first riffle. If an automatic shuffler is used, the hand begins
                                                    when the green button is pushed.

                                                    If there had been no break after that hand the player would have been out and lost all rights to dispute the ruling once the dealer had started the riffle for the next deal. He was just lucky the hand happened at that time.
                                                    Last edited by carlinrose; 15-11-14, 21:29. Reason: .

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      Is that disputing a pot, ie the amount of chips in the pot, as opposed to disputing an action. I thought that when the action has changed you cannot go back, is this incorrect?

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                                        Is that disputing a pot, ie the amount of chips in the pot, as opposed to disputing an action. I thought that when the action has changed you cannot go back, is this incorrect?
                                                        My understanding is that when the TDA talks about action and substantial action they are referring to player actions. The dealer dealing the the flop does not constitute action. I think this is an area that the TDA rules do not cover, we've moved into a situation that the rules make no allowances for.
                                                        Last edited by Hectorjelly; 16-11-14, 13:38.

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29
                                                          Hi Guys,

                                                          I’ve waited a few days to come back as I wanted to speak some other TD’s who I respect and get their views on the situation that happened.

                                                          As Noel mentioned there were a number of errors during the hand…

                                                          1: Seat 9 not putting chips into the pot.
                                                          2: Dealer not telling seat 9 to put chips into the pot.
                                                          3: Dealer not saying “2 Players all-in”
                                                          4: Initial Wrong Ruling

                                                          It’s been mentioned that Seat 2 wasn’t paying attention to the action. Another player on the table (I believe it was either Seat 1 or Seat 3) also said that they weren’t aware that seat 9 was all-in due to the noise. Remember we were in a poker room with 700+ players with most of them leaving to go on dinner break and so the room was very noisy. So it’s reasonable to assume that he didn’t hear the 2nd all-in. I for one believe losing 9,200 is penalty enough.

                                                          Four of the Five TD’s who I spoke to about the ruling asked why either the player or TD didn’t get a 2nd ruling once it was disputed. I can understand why the player didn’t as the TD who made the ruling was the Main Event TD and when he questioned her, she explained the accepted action ruling to him at the time.

                                                          Why he came to me during the break I don’t know, maybe someone said after the hand that the TD made the wrong ruling as per the Rules announcement which was made at the start of each day.

                                                          It’s been suggested that substantial action has taken place and that his right to dispute the hand has passed so we can’t go back.
                                                          The player’s action didn’t change, as Darragh said already the dealer dealing the flop doesn't constitute action.. He was forced to do something he didn’t want to do, after he disputed the ruling with the TD. The TD should have come to me to get a 2nd opinion on the ruling at the time but didn’t.

                                                          The Five TD who I spoke to regarding the ruling, one is American and TD’s at WPT and WSOP among other events in the states, four are European. Two are senior EPT TD’s, one is the European Main WPT TD and the other works for both WPT and EPT among other events

                                                          All Five agree the original ruling which was made was the wrong one.

                                                          TD 1 likes the accepted action rule but feels enforcing it in the above situation is not in spirit of the game and would have given seat 2 the option to call or fold if he made the original ruling. However once the original ruling has been made he strongly disagrees with my decision to change ruling but acknowledges the fact that Seat 2 has been wronged and suggests giving him a refund. I’m not sure how many people in seat 2’s position would accept a refund.

                                                          TD 2 Doesn’t agree with the accepted action ruling and strongly agrees with my ruling and would have also overruled the original ruling even if another hand was dealt or if Seat 2 won the hand.

                                                          TD 3 Also doesn’t agree with the accepted action ruling. Was unsure as to how he would rule. He originally thought the easy option for him was to stand over the original ruling, while he thought my ruling was a fair ruling considering “Many, many, many strange circumstances at the same time occurred”.

                                                          BTW standing over the original ruling at the IPO was the easiest option open to me at the time, as I could have easily said “sorry to late”.

                                                          TD 4 Likes the accepted action rule but like TD 1 feels enforcing it in the above situation is not in the spirit of the game and would also have given seat 2 the option to call or fold. While he agreed with me that there was a gross error on behalf of the tournament staff both dealer and TD and believes seat 2 shouldn’t have been knocked out in this hand. He also thinks that seat 9 would be hard done by if seat 2 wins the hand as we may not hear about the situation and therefore not have the option to overrule the original ruling. This TD suggested introducing chips from the chip room to seat 2 for the chips that he lost to seat 9.

                                                          I didn’t think of this at the time, while I still prefer my ruling I do think it’s a middle ground. Two of the other Four TD’s strongly disagree with this including the TD who strongly disagreed with my ruling, that TD would prefer my ruling over introducing extra chips into the tournament.

                                                          TD 5 Also likes the accepted action rule and also thinks seat 2 should not be forced to call in this situation. He thinks it’s a “Really tough situation to rule, as any rule we make results one of the players feeling hard done by”. He originally though the same as TD 3 to give a refund to seat 2 but then said that seat 2 could have a legal case against the event. Considering the wrong ruling was made he then changed his mind and agreed with.

                                                          As you can see it’s not a clear cut case for either side of the argument, to quote one of the TD’s “Wow unlucky day, delighted it happened to you and not me”. The TDA rule set or any poker rule set for that matter can’t cover every situation that arises at a poker table.

                                                          Also it has been mentioned that the ruling was a player specific ruling, suggesting that I made the ruling based on the fact that I know the player (I know most Irish players). This is 100% not the case. I would have made the same ruling if he was the player in seat 9 with the Ace’s.
                                                          Last edited by JP Poker; 19-11-14, 01:31.
                                                          €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                                                          Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                                                          €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                                                          CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                                                          Comment


                                                            #30
                                                            It's a difficult one alright.
                                                            My main gripe would be the not putting any chips forward when all in.
                                                            So although the guy with the Aces has a right to feel hard done by because he had to survive the all in I do think he should shoulder some of the blame.
                                                            Going all in without making some kind of forward movement with a high denomination stack of chips should be discouraged for this very reason.
                                                            I would go as far to say that the dealer should enforce an obvious movement of chips forward from the all in player.

                                                            JP, if seat 9 had moved a large stack of chips forward would the ruling have been any different?

                                                            Comment


                                                              #31
                                                              hi, I've been directed here to this post by a few people.
                                                              I was the player in seat 10 (pocket aces)

                                                              Firstly there is a few inaccuracies to how the hand played out compared to whats been written above (Chinese whispers effect maybe)
                                                              For what its worth this is my account..

                                                              The player before me moved all in followed by the dealer announcing it. I followed with 'all in' almost instantly moving my chips ever so slightly forward (not as some have suggested would of been the proper way and into the middle but by maybe an inch from were they were originally pilled but further forward than not pushing them at all- But then again how many all ins push all their stack forward into the middle). Again the dealer repeated this by confirming all in, a player opposite side of my table made a remark in jest of me being 'at it again' (having been all in a couple hands before and trippling up :d) so clearly and as was confirmed talking to others at our table a clear announcement by both me and dealer confirming the all in and that others at the table heard both all ins.
                                                              (Tho don't get me wrong i do believe seat 2 for what ever reason didnt hear me or the dealer.)

                                                              Anywayyyy.....

                                                              Next player folded and then seat 2 said yes ok or yeh ok not 100% sure and a very important point moved all his chips forward. When the player in seat 2 realised i was all in he seemed shocked and his original argument with the dealer was she hadnt said i was all in, he hadnt heard me and because dealer was sitting next me he didnt see my chips out in middle His main argument at this stage was that the dealer only announced one all in. At this stage the seat 2 announced during his rant of sorts that he was only calling the 9.600 and at this stage pulled his stack back and put in 2 x 5k chips. At that moment i didnt think much about it as the dealer was saying its an all in so seemed irrelevant. When the dealer said it was the players responsibility to know other players actions and that he had to put all his stack into middle because she heard a verbal call and the all in stood the floor was called. Seeing that player 2 clearly didnt intend to call my all in i offered to the floor that player 2 should just take his chips back and put in the 9,600 he was intending to call and lose it and keep his remaining stack (i too was worried bout aces getting cracked after all the hassle it seemed destiny he'd win after all his yapping lol) to which he seemed happy with but which was turned down by the floor who told me she appreciated my offer but the rules have to be adhered too. After a few minutes of talking of sorts between floor and player and floor and the dealer the hand was played and my aces stood up and we broke for break with player2 asking were JP was because he was ''going get this sorted''. Before i went on break i was left at table stacking up the chips when the dealer while talking about the hand said she felt sorry for seat 2 but he clearly went all in and it was his own fault for not knowing i was all in.

                                                              During the break some guys at the bar i persume from Dublin had remarked that the guy (as was mentioned in a post above) was known by some of them and if even tho they couldnt see it being overturned because the floor made a decision and the hand played out i should go down and have my say as they were sure he'd be giving his bobs worth.

                                                              After the break is were i think the story changed somewhat. The dealer went from being sure the player called my all in, to not sure what he had said. The player in seat 2's story now was he hadnt moved all in or said anything that could be construed as a call but only put in 2x 5k chips to call the short stack without any verbal announcement most people at the table agreed he said something but they werent sure.

                                                              Although the hands over with now and nothing can be changed i was recently playing in london and the hand was talked about with some seasoned well known players and the general agreement was that they've never heard of a player winning a hand and chips being taking back after the hands over especially when the floor forced the hand to be played. And even if the dealer and floor had made what is seen for argument sake the wrong floor decision as soon as hand is played out that should be story over even if seat 2 was totally justified and in the right and the decision was totally wrong. That the floors decision should of been final and if any doubts were there then higher than the floor should of been called before hand played.

                                                              For me the player made a mistake not realising i was all in and to get his way he twisted the story to make him seem like he done nowt wrong when in reality he really had no argument he didnt realise i was all in when he did he realised i had him covered and his hand was only 5s. If he had of hit trips hed of said no more.

                                                              In hindsight even for a neutral not taking anyones account as truth somebody has to of lied in the hand. Did the dealer by saying player2 called? Did the dealer by telling the floor that player 2 went all in without realising i was all in ? did player 2 by saying he didnt go all in, call or know i was all in? did i lie by saying i said all in? Did they actually make the player put his whole stack in when he had only threw in 2x5k chips and why they do that?
                                                              I personally believe that the decision to reward player 2 his stack back was the easier choice than tell player 2 hes out. And why did the dealer back down from being adamant before break he called me to after break not sure what was said.
                                                              Last edited by AnDun123; 19-11-14, 22:20.

                                                              Comment


                                                                #32
                                                                Hi AnDun123,

                                                                Welcome to IPB.

                                                                I sent you a pm, if you can have a look at that. Then I'm happy to continue the conversation in the thread.

                                                                Cheers
                                                                Jp
                                                                €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                                                                Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                                                                €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                                                                CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                                                                Comment


                                                                  #33
                                                                  Based on the latest version in was a 100% call and the original floor ruling.

                                                                  Also JP, another thing that worried me in your latest response is that u said that the ruling came from the Main Event TD, is her decision not final?
                                                                  What were you in this event? The organiser? Is the Organisers decision now deemed as final? (Even if based on a stale version of events which were not gathered in the appropriate manner).

                                                                  This whole thing stinks and as Noel said is this honestly what we are paying overpriced Reg fees for.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                    #34
                                                                    Originally posted by JP Poker View Post

                                                                    TD 4 Likes the accepted action rule but like TD 1 feels enforcing it in the above situation is not in the spirit of the game and would also have given seat 2 the option to call or fold. While he agreed with me that there was a gross error on behalf of the tournament staff both dealer and TD and believes seat 2 shouldn’t have been knocked out in this hand. He also thinks that seat 9 would be hard done by if seat 2 wins the hand as we may not hear about the situation and therefore not have the option to overrule the original ruling. This TD suggested introducing chips from the chip room to seat 2 for the chips that he lost to seat 9.

                                                                    I didn’t think of this at the time, while I still prefer my ruling I do think it’s a middle ground.
                                                                    Two of the other Four TD’s strongly disagree with this including the TD who strongly disagreed with my ruling, that TD would prefer my ruling over introducing extra chips into the tournament.
                                                                    Opening yourself up to some huge contrived double angle-shooting if this was to become the norm.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                      #35
                                                                      Be interesting to see what Carfax thinks of this as it is ultimately his tourney, in my knowledge anyway. Seems like a horrible situation from start to finish but I think the original ruling should have been upheld, right or wrong.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                        #36
                                                                        Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                                                        Based on the latest version in was a 100% call and the original floor ruling.

                                                                        Also JP, another thing that worried me in your latest response is that u said that the ruling came from the Main Event TD, is her decision not final?
                                                                        What were you in this event? The organiser? Is the Organisers decision now deemed as final? (Even if based on a stale version of events which were not gathered in the appropriate manner).

                                                                        This whole thing stinks and as Noel said is this honestly what we are paying overpriced Reg fees for.
                                                                        Hi Ciaran,

                                                                        I was the event TD and ulitmate final decision was with me.

                                                                        I also co-ordinated the whole event which is the reason why we had a Main event TD who was responsible for the running of the main event as I may (and was) pulled off the to organize other parts of the event.

                                                                        I will come back with a response to what is new information to me regarding hand as I have a few questions which I'm asking John (seat 9) and am waiting his response.
                                                                        €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                                                                        Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                                                                        €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                                                                        CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                                                                        Comment


                                                                          #37
                                                                          If that's the case JP I'm confused. I'm a player/customer and I'm confused. I know that the TD's decision is final but now the TD is not the TD any more. Maybe this is normal speak among those running big festivals with multi tournaments but as a player if someone is Tournament Director for the Tournament that I'm playing and I call the floor then I take it that they have the final say, as per the charter, No?

                                                                          Comment


                                                                            #38
                                                                            Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                                                            If that's the case JP I'm confused. I'm a player/customer and I'm confused. I know that the TD's decision is final but now the TD is not the TD any more. Maybe this is normal speak among those running big festivals with multi tournaments but as a player if someone is Tournament Director for the Tournament that I'm playing and I call the floor then I take it that they have the final say, as per the charter, No?
                                                                            Hi Ciaran,

                                                                            Maybe I didn't explain myself well, I see how my wording from yesterdays post could be confusing so sorry for that.

                                                                            While some poker events and festivals would have the Main TD on the Main Event for the whole event (very common place at 1 day events for example) some events the Main TD co-ordinates everything and puts a TD on the Main event to run it.

                                                                            It would be similar to having a TD run a side event, if there is dispute they can go to the Main TD.

                                                                            Example at the Norwegian Championship I have Shawn run the Main Event while I co-ordinate the event. If there is a dispute on the Main Event, one of the side events or one of the cash tables I would be the person who makes the final ruling.

                                                                            The TD who made the original ruling in this hand was the TD who was running the Main Event.

                                                                            I hope this clears any confusion.

                                                                            Jp
                                                                            €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                                                                            Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                                                                            €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                                                                            CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                                                                            Comment


                                                                              #39
                                                                              I've spoken to John about the new information, i.e. seat 2 putting all his chips into the pot.

                                                                              Firstly let me say if this information was given on the day the original ruling would have stood.

                                                                              As John has now explained to me Seat 2 put all his chips into the pot and only after the dealer brought it to his attention (i'm guessing when seat 3 BB folded and seat 2 went to take back the difference) that his chips had to stay in the pot as he was facing a 80k+ all-in.

                                                                              When the first ruling was made seat 2 only had 2 x 5k chips in the pot. There was a lot of back and forth discussion between seat 2 and the dealer and due to the noise of other players in the room leaving for dinner break seat 9 didn't hear most of the conversation. Seat 9 said he didn't tell the TD at the time that seat 2 did in fact put all his chips into the pot as he thought the dealer was after saying it to the TD.

                                                                              When the the situation was explained to me by both the TD and the Dealer I was only told seat 2 had put 2 x 5k chips into the pot. If this was situation the original ruling would have been wrong, as we didn't have the accepted action rule in place at the event and I would have overruled the 1st decision and I still stand by that as the wrong rule would have been made.

                                                                              Seat 9 is also in agreement that if it was as simple as seat 2 putting 2 x 5k chips into the pot that he wouldn't expect him to have to call off all of his stack.

                                                                              That said I do have to take responsibility for the wrong ruling been made as I normally get the players who are involved in the hand to acknowledge what I'm saying to be the correct, allowing for one final dispute before I make my final ruling.

                                                                              I clearly either didn't do this or communicated it poorly to the effect that seat 9 didn't hear me explain the reason why I was overruling the original ruling.

                                                                              For that I've apologized to John and offered him a small token as a gesture of goodwill.
                                                                              Last edited by JP Poker; 22-11-14, 17:27.
                                                                              €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                                                                              Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                                                                              €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                                                                              CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                                                                              Comment

                                                                              Working...
                                                                              X