Irish Poker Boards
Register Arcade FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

Go Back   Irish Poker Boards > Poker > Poker Theory, Strategy and Rulings > Rules and Rulings
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 13-12-14, 03:27   #1
doke
But its only dollars, right?
 
doke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: My house usually
Posts: 1,257
Lappin ruling from EPT Prague

Reported here

This ruling seems downright bizarre to me, and since I know some of the best TDs in the world read tghis forum, I'd be interested in their views or explanation.

Also, on a more general point, can a player really be forced to leave chips in the pot after having been instructed to put them in by a dealer incorrectly?
__________________
My poker blog - Doking around in cyberspace
doke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-14, 03:42   #2
Donk Magnet
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,823
The ruling is correct its the dealer that's wrong.
If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed.
35: Substantial Action.
Substantial Action is either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold). See also Rules 34 and 38.
Donk Magnet is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
Old 14-12-14, 06:35   #3
Hectorjelly
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,292
Correct ruling, personally I think that if the dealer misdirected someone that should absolve them, but as the rules stand the dealer is irrelevant.
Hectorjelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 14-12-14, 17:32   #4
rounders123
Member
 
rounders123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Norf Dablin
Posts: 3,578
What a spa for showing the KK
rounders123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-15, 15:52   #5
LAPPIN
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 73
To be fair to Luca, to whom I do give a hard time (there have been a few odd rulings over the years), he changed Kate's original ruling to the button being moved, thus not double-punishing me. The substantial action rule should stand but I definitely should not have found myself in the BB next hand, since the substantial action occurred under the assumption that I had posted and not limped.

Kate told me that I had effectively limped and that it was also my fault as it was also my responsibility to follow prior action. I explained that I had just taken my seat and so was not privy to prior action and simply did as I was told.

I think the right ruling was made in the end.
__________________
My website and Blog: dklappin.com
LAPPIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Irish Poker Boards > Poker > Poker Theory, Strategy and Rulings > Rules and Rulings

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32.