Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ruling Please

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

    Ruling Please

    Probably simplistic, but I'm out of practice at this.

    €10 R/B

    5 players remain.

    UTG pushes all in silently.

    UTG +2 says All in and later claims that he didn't see UTG's bet but is happy to play his hand.

    BTN says call and someone says to the lad that UTG is all in as well. He was counting out enough chips to cover UTG +2's bet and it was clear that he did not see that UTG was all in and want's to get all his chips back.

    #2
    All bets stand

    Comment


      #3
      Dealer should have announced UTG's bet as allin. Button's call stands

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by curleywurley View Post
        Probably simplistic, but I'm out of practice at this.

        €10 R/B

        5 players remain.

        UTG pushes all in silently.

        UTG +2 says All in and later claims that he didn't see UTG's bet but is happy to play his hand.

        BTN says call and someone says to the lad that UTG is all in as well. He was counting out enough chips to cover UTG +2's bet and it was clear that he did not see that UTG was all in and want's to get all his chips back.
        Something odd here, 5 players remain means UTG+2 IS the button!!!

        Comment


          #5
          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. If a caller then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct 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

          Comment


            #6
            Bet stands as it was a verbal call. Agreed the dealer should have announced all in, but the button should be paying attention to the action anyways.
            NextStopWhoKnows

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by JP Poker View Post
              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. If a caller then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action.
              Should the BTN have to call UTG's bet as well? B/c he has not protected his hand by not observing the table?
              Last edited by curleywurley; 11-11-11, 18:17. Reason: + not

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by curleywurley View Post
                Should the BTN have to call UTG's bet as well?
                100% yes

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by curleywurley View Post
                  Should the BTN have to call UTG's bet as well? B/c he has not protected his hand by not observing the table?
                  Yes he has called in turn!!

                  If he called out of turn and then action was different when it came into him he would have his full options. I.e. Call, fold or raise
                  €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


                    #10
                    Originally posted by JP Poker View Post
                    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. If a caller then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action.
                    JP, as a player, i have a problem with the "game of alert, continuous observation" thing. In Newcastle I was seat 1. A player in mid position raises to 600. The player in seat 10 pushes all his chips forward without saying a word. I "call" what I think is the 600 raise and (IT IS THEN!) brought to my attention that I have just called an all in. There is a 'cut out' in the table for the dealer so unless...... the all in player announces or dealer announces (which she did not do for the second time in a row!) or I stand up on my feet for every deal to see what seat 10 has done... i would not know the action. I was penalised for this yet it was physically impossible for me to know what was happening unless I stand up EVERY time it is my turn to act. (she was told in the previous hand to make action announcements ...which she did not do in the very next hand). Toby told me the continuous observation thing and I felt I was being punished for something that was the dealers incompetence. There has to be some common sense from the TD's when you have situations like this. If an organiser puts 10 players onto a table with a dealer cut out and it is dealer incompetence why should the player be punished!
                    Last edited by westlife; 11-11-11, 19:26.
                    D15 CASINO, Mulhuddart Village (opp Blanchardstown shopping centre)

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by westlife View Post
                      JP, as a player, i have a problem with the "game of alert, continuous observation" thing. In Newcastle I was seat 1. A player in mid position raises to 600. The player in seat 10 pushes all his chips forward without saying a word. I "call" what I think is the 600 raise and (IT IS THEN!) brought to my attention that I have just called an all in. There is a 'cut out' in the table for the dealer so unless...... the all in player announces or dealer announces (which she did not do for the second time in a row!) or I stand up on my feet for every deal to see what seat 10 has done... i would not know the action. I was penalised for this yet it was physically impossible for me to know what was happening unless I stand up EVERY time it is my turn to act. (she was told in the previous hand to make action announcements ...which she did not do in the very next hand). Toby told me the continuous observation thing and I felt I was being punished for something that was the dealers incompetence. There has to be some common sense from the TD's when you have situations like this. If an organiser puts 10 players onto a table with a dealer cut out and it is dealer incompetence why should the player be punished!
                      If you shut your hole long enough you might notice whats going on around you

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by westlife View Post
                        JP, as a player, i have a problem with the "game of alert, continuous observation" thing. In Newcastle I was seat 1. A player in mid position raises to 600. The player in seat 10 pushes all his chips forward without saying a word. I "call" what I think is the 600 raise and (IT IS THEN!) brought to my attention that I have just called an all in. There is a 'cut out' in the table for the dealer so unless...... the all in player announces or dealer announces (which she did not do for the second time in a row!) or I stand up on my feet for every deal to see what seat 10 has done... i would not know the action. I was penalised for this yet it was physically impossible for me to know what was happening unless I stand up EVERY time it is my turn to act. (she was told in the previous hand to make action announcements ...which she did not do in the very next hand). Toby told me the continuous observation thing and I felt I was being punished for something that was the dealers incompetence. There has to be some common sense from the TD's when you have situations like this. If an organiser puts 10 players onto a table with a dealer cut out and it is dealer incompetence why should the player be punished!
                        If this was a dealer error as in your situation Phil, and specifically in the seats ye were in, (ie: seat 10 v seat 1), if you just put in the 600 chips which was an obvious call of the original early raise, I would be happy enough to rule "in the interest of fairness" and allow you to fold while forfeiting the 600. If as you say it was obvious you were only calling the 600, and it was agreed at the table that the dealer nor player didnt announce the all-in, I dont agree with you (or any player for that matter) being forced to call in that spot, specifically in the seat 10 v seat 1 scenario.. I thought the rule of common sense and fairness to all players over-ruled most other rules?

                        Connie

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Sounds like a bullshit ruling in Westlifes case. If the TD cannot show descretion there's no point in having them there, might as well just have a school teacher to do the job. Connies post sounds spot on.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X