I questioned a dealer in the Killarney €150 tournament on Sunday. Two players bet the early streets (pre-flop; flop; turn) and then both players checked the river. Then one player mucked his hand and the other was awarded the pot and also mucked his hand. I asked to see the winning hand. The dealer said he did not have to show, and a passing floor person said the dealer was correct, this ruling was agreed by the organisers pre-tournament. I was not in the hand at any stage.
In the Fitzwilliam a few years ago I was in a similar situation (but not exactly the same). On the river a Northern Ireland player bet 2,500, I called, and he threw his hand into the muck. I asked was his hand mucked. The dealer said it was. I asked did I have to show. I was told I had to show. I showed AK for ace high and collected. In my case there was action on the river.
I will now give an example of why I think the Killarney ruling was wrong. My ficticious characters and situation will show an unacceptable situation that this rule allows.
John and Jim Z, identical twins, are on the same table in the Killarney €550 Main Event.
John has 2,100,000 chips, Jim has 31,000 chips. There are 66 players left, 64 are paid. The other players on their table have 40k to 60k chips each.
John Z opens for 30,000, all fold except Jim Z, who calls for 30,000, leaving 1,000 behind. They check it down. Then John Z mucks his hand and Jim Z collects the pot of 60,000 increasing his stack to 61,000.
In the next hand John Z bets 60,000 and again Jim Z calls. They check it down again, and again John Z mucks his hand. Jim Z collects the pot and now has 121,000.
For a laugh they do it again. Jim's stack goes up to 241,000.
John Z and Jim Z now make the money as players are knocked out in 66th and 65th place.
You might say the TD would take action against them for soft-playing. Would he take action because they are related? With this ruling in place how can the TD / dealer spot team-playing. I'll guess most players did not know this ruling applies in the Ladbrokes. If every player knew would this play become commonplace on the bubble?
In the Fitzwilliam a few years ago I was in a similar situation (but not exactly the same). On the river a Northern Ireland player bet 2,500, I called, and he threw his hand into the muck. I asked was his hand mucked. The dealer said it was. I asked did I have to show. I was told I had to show. I showed AK for ace high and collected. In my case there was action on the river.
I will now give an example of why I think the Killarney ruling was wrong. My ficticious characters and situation will show an unacceptable situation that this rule allows.
John and Jim Z, identical twins, are on the same table in the Killarney €550 Main Event.
John has 2,100,000 chips, Jim has 31,000 chips. There are 66 players left, 64 are paid. The other players on their table have 40k to 60k chips each.
John Z opens for 30,000, all fold except Jim Z, who calls for 30,000, leaving 1,000 behind. They check it down. Then John Z mucks his hand and Jim Z collects the pot of 60,000 increasing his stack to 61,000.
In the next hand John Z bets 60,000 and again Jim Z calls. They check it down again, and again John Z mucks his hand. Jim Z collects the pot and now has 121,000.
For a laugh they do it again. Jim's stack goes up to 241,000.
John Z and Jim Z now make the money as players are knocked out in 66th and 65th place.
You might say the TD would take action against them for soft-playing. Would he take action because they are related? With this ruling in place how can the TD / dealer spot team-playing. I'll guess most players did not know this ruling applies in the Ladbrokes. If every player knew would this play become commonplace on the bubble?
Comment