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 06-11-14, 01:43   #1
JP Poker
Member
 
JP Poker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 4,153
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.
JP Poker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 02:18   #2
deanolydon
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 127
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
deanolydon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 03:31   #3
mdoug
Member
 
mdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,918
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.
mdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 04:29   #4
Mellor
Member
 
Mellor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 9,905
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).
__________________

€35 Betfair bonus
Mellor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 05:28   #5
imidg
Member
 
imidg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 74
I would contact Boylepoker and try and get him a refund or free into next years event.
imidg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 10:00   #6
Atlantispoker
Member
 
Atlantispoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 984
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
__________________
€3,500 GTD. in The Monte Monthly Sunday 26th Nov. The Trip to Tip Sunday 3rd Dec. @ 5pm Hayes Hotel Thurles €3,500 GTD.THE CHRISTMAS CRACKER Friday 29th DEC @ 5pm €5000 Gtd. The Dolmen Hotel
Atlantispoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-14, 18:56   #7
Bubbleboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 76
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.
Bubbleboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-14, 19:06   #8
westlife
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,582
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 at 19:09.
westlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-14, 19:07   #9
Flushdraw
The Gamesmaster
 
Flushdraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Swieqi, Sunny Malta
Posts: 21,813
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?
Flushdraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 07-11-14, 19:20   #10
ghostface
Drunken assault fan
 
ghostface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,667
Quote:
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
ghostface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-14, 14:37   #11
JP Poker
Member
 
JP Poker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 4,153
Quote:
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.
JP Poker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-14, 20:23   #12
tylerdurden94
Ad-Min-Is-Trator Yo!
 
tylerdurden94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dillon - Texas
Posts: 21,234
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 :{)
tylerdurden94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-14, 20:53   #13
GlennDoyle
Member
 
GlennDoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Blanchardstown
Posts: 111
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 at 20:55. Reason: Forgot a part
GlennDoyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-14, 21:20   #14
JP Poker
Member
 
JP Poker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 4,153
Quote:
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.
JP Poker is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
Old 09-11-14, 22:09   #15
tylerdurden94
Ad-Min-Is-Trator Yo!
 
tylerdurden94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dillon - Texas
Posts: 21,234
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 :{)
tylerdurden94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 09-11-14, 23:14   #16
Mellor
Member
 
Mellor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 9,905
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________

€35 Betfair bonus
Mellor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-14, 01:11   #17
LTL
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 260
Quote:
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.
LTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 10-11-14, 20:45   #18
JP Poker
Member
 
JP Poker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 4,153
Quote:
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 at 20:50.
JP Poker is offline   Reply With Quote
3 Thanks From:
Old 11-11-14, 00:19   #19
LTL
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 260
Quote:
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.
LTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-14, 00:44   #20
_dof_
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 41
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?
_dof_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
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 11:56.