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 11-11-14, 11:42   #21
westlife
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,588
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?
westlife is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
Old 11-11-14, 13:12   #22
winkey66
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 145
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 at 13:15.
winkey66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 12-11-14, 11:10   #23
Atlantispoker
Member
 
Atlantispoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 985
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 ^-^ )
__________________
€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
Thanks From:
Old 12-11-14, 13:19   #24
winkey66
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 145
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 ?
winkey66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-14, 12:15   #25
Arazi
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 792
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.
Arazi is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
Old 15-11-14, 10:15   #26
Gimmeabreak
Chief Tipster
 
Gimmeabreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,977
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?
Gimmeabreak is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
Old 15-11-14, 21:28   #27
carlinrose
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimmeabreak View Post
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 at 21:29. Reason: .
carlinrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 16-11-14, 00:42   #28
Arazi
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 792
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?
Arazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-11-14, 12:47   #29
Hectorjelly
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,296
Quote:
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 at 13:38.
Hectorjelly is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
Old 19-11-14, 01:25   #30
JP Poker
Member
 
JP Poker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 4,153
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 at 01:31.
JP Poker is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
Old 19-11-14, 08:56   #31
gorrrr72
Member
 
gorrrr72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Future
Posts: 2,872
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?
gorrrr72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-11-14, 21:46   #32
AnDun123
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1
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 at 22:20.
AnDun123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-14, 10:26   #33
JP Poker
Member
 
JP Poker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 4,153
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
JP Poker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-14, 17:11   #34
Arazi
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 792
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.
Arazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-14, 17:35   #35
Dice75
Bringing the Mac
 
Dice75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ranking People
Posts: 10,734
Quote:
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.
__________________
.

2017 LIVE IRISH POKER RANKINGS

.
Dice75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 20-11-14, 17:47   #36
dobby
Member
 
dobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: The Infirmary
Posts: 6,775
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.
dobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-14, 18:41   #37
JP Poker
Member
 
JP Poker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 4,153
Quote:
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.
JP Poker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-14, 19:01   #38
Arazi
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 792
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?
Arazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-14, 20:31   #39
Gimmeabreak
Chief Tipster
 
Gimmeabreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Poker View Post
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

.
.
.
.

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.
I find it concerning that TD2 has a job in poker.
Gimmeabreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-14, 20:55   #40
JP Poker
Member
 
JP Poker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 4,153
Quote:
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
JP Poker 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 14:56.