To be or not to be: Rulings

[dino1980]

BTW if OP's version of events are correct then before Juicy mucks his cards he tells him at least twice that he must call and that he should call for a ruling. Opponent ignores this and mucks.

[avillan]

Saying I will call you whatever you bet so shortly after the previous ruling is a very stupid thing to do. The OP is a c**t imo for allowing the player to fold and then trying to claim his chips. If he wants to stick to the rules he should have made sure his hand wasn't folded by calling for a ruling before pushing allin which is what frazer did. In this case at least the guy gets to play the pot out and he may actually still win the pot. By allowing the player to fold then asking for a ruling afterwards it meant he avoided the risk of an outdraw which is just plain angle shooting.

imo (and poker is a game of opinions) the rules should have been interpreted differently in this situation and the player should've kept his chips and been warned about future comments. The OP should have been informed to get rulings before the players has a chance to muck if he wanted to angle shoot (yes as TD I would've made it clear I thought he was angle shooting and would have told him how to do it "properly"). Once the next hand has been played then a ruling cannot be made on any previous hands (another one of Grosvenors rules) and I would have used this rule to over rule the "verbal actions are binding" rule.

rule doesnt need taking out at the next rules meeting it just needs modifying/clarifying. Table banter should be allowed but I seem to be one of the only ones who thinks an actual verbal declaration should be binding. If you say "you bet and I will call" you are trying to stop the other person betting. If they bet you should have to call.

I didnt allow the player to fold, I told him when I could see he was thinking about mucking that he could get a ruling, I didnt need a ruling as I knew what the ruling was. The cards were then chucked into the middle of the muck. He was in seat 6 and I was in seat 8 - The dealer could have prevented his cards from mucking - I suppose and the dealer could have advised the player as well imo.

I would have made the same speech play had my opponent been flushy, Ariston, Mick McCool, or Jewsy.
I also agree that it doesnt need taking out at the next rules meeting it just needs modifying/clarifying.

[AndrewT]

None of this answers the most important question arising from all of this - is it Juicy or Jewsy?

[Royal Flush]

None of this answers the most important question arising from all of this - is it Juicy or Jewsy?

Juicy, it comes back about a year ago when he started playing the cash games in the Marina, when a big pot developed he would say "Juicy" and lick his lips, he had a method of not playing pots until they got big! Hence the Juiceman or Juicy.

[DaveShoelace]

None of this answers the most important question arising from all of this - is it Juicy or Jewsy?

Juicy, it comes back about a year ago when he started playing the cash games in the Marina, when a big pot developed he would say "Juicy" and lick his lips, he had a method of not playing pots until they got big! Hence the Juiceman or Juicy.

I like that nickname/origin, 'The Juiceman' also sounds pretty good.

I guess I have a similar nickname at my local, its 'why do you always bet when its a paired board you daft prick', not quite as catchy.

I would have probably needed more info on why he was called Jewsy, had that been his nickname.

[Bongo]

If the ruling was that he called the all in then surely he had already called and gone to showdown before he mucked his hand?

[ariston]

the difference is me flushy or even mick mccool wouldnt have been daft enough to make such a comment- we also dont muck or even try to as we know we have to call. if we did make a comment we wouldve been letting you hang yourself as we wouldve been sat with aces. Even how you told the story you have come across as an angle shooter. I dont know you from adam but I think you were out of order the way you did things.

[GreekStein]

None of this answers the most important question arising from all of this - is it Juicy or Jewsy?

Juicy, it comes back about a year ago when he started playing the cash games in the Marina, when a big pot developed he would say "Juicy" and lick his lips, he had a method of not playing pots until they got big! Hence the Juiceman or Juicy.

I like that nickname/origin, 'The Juiceman' also sounds pretty good.

I guess I have a similar nickname at my local, its 'why do you always bet when its a paired board you daft prick', not quite as catchy.
I would have probably needed more info on why he was called Jewsy, had that been his nickname.

LOL! class.  A number 2 for your 'dad had position on me' line

[david3103]

There was then a further delay and eventually a decision was made to count Jewsy's chips and he had to match my original all-in bet, I dont know why it took so long (70 minutes) for this decision to be made.

Whatever level the game is played at, whether by professionals or hobby players, I cannot for the life of me see how this can be right.

What if Juicy/Jewsy no longer has sufficient chips to match that bet? If he'd been knocked out by someone else in the 70 minutes it took to get a decision would OP get the chips from whoever now has them?

What about the fact that J/J had, according to the ruling, more chips than he should have in the hands played after the incident. His play after the break is different than it would have been had the ruling been made at the appropriate time. This has an impact on everyone else at the table surely?

In this instance the TD had the break to make a decision and could at least have resolved the matter before J/J had the chance to use/lose those chips.

[MANTIS01]

None of this answers the most important question arising from all of this - is it Juicy or Jewsy?

Religious orientation would prob determine the spelling. Why do I want his wife to be called Lucy?

As far as the situation goes it is a clear angle-shoot for sure. But like Ariston said if you are a player you simply wont fall foul of it. So it's part of being a poker player whatever your degree of condemnation, so watch out for it. If you go out in the rain without an umbrella you will prob get wet.

[Claw75]

There was then a further delay and eventually a decision was made to count Jewsy's chips and he had to match my original all-in bet, I dont know why it took so long (70 minutes) for this decision to be made.

Whatever level the game is played at, whether by professionals or hobby players, I cannot for the life of me see how this can be right.

What if Juicy/Jewsy no longer has sufficient chips to match that bet? If he'd been knocked out by someone else in the 70 minutes it took to get a decision would OP get the chips from whoever now has them?

What about the fact that J/J had, according to the ruling, more chips than he should have in the hands played after the incident. His play after the break is different than it would have been had the ruling been made at the appropriate time. This has an impact on everyone else at the table surely?

In this instance the TD had the break to make a decision and could at least have resolved the matter before J/J had the chance to use/lose those chips.

the break was extended while they were discussing the hand.

[dik9]

IMO Speech play is between players and NOT binding.

The dealer is listening for the player to say check, bet, raise, fold, all-in etc, then the dealer has been told the action and is binding.

Think of it as online play, you can press one of three options, bet, check/call or fold. You can auto click these options too as you all know. If action before you changes then it becomes unchecked (unless playing limit) In both instances of the OP the player would have the options open to them.

Speech play is what happens in the chat box and is not binding. However if someone attempts to collude, speaks foreign etc then you would contact the site (which in live games would be the TD)

I have never heard of someone contacting a site because someone had typed into the chat box, - if I go all-in will you call? -    - Yes-   And if someone did type that into a chat box and complain, do you think the site would uphold that??

[Cf]

I've refrained from posting to all of this for one simple reason.

The initial ruling and subsequent abusal of this initial ruling is simply absurd.

If I ever play in a GUKPT event I don't think i'll ever open my mouth in fear of what they might do to me.

[ariston]

IMO Speech play is between players and NOT binding.

The dealer is listening for the player to say check, bet, raise, fold, all-in etc, then the dealer has been told the action and is binding.

Think of it as online play, you can press one of three options, bet, check/call or fold. You can auto click these options too as you all know. If action before you changes then it becomes unchecked (unless playing limit) In both instances of the OP the player would have the options open to them.

Speech play is what happens in the chat box and is not binding. However if someone attempts to collude, speaks foreign etc then you would contact the site (which in live games would be the TD)

I have never heard of someone contacting a site because someone had typed into the chat box, - if I go all-in will you call? -    - Yes-   And if someone did type that into a chat box and complain, do you think the site would uphold that??

this isnt online and the rules are available for everyone to read for the gukpt. if an online site had a rule saying and verbal declaration is binding then I would expect them to uphold it

. I stand by my original stance that the OP is a dog/angle shooter and the player he was against was foolish. I wouldve made the player call and asked for a ruling before he mucked his hand so he at least had chance to outdraw me- I would not have allowed his hand to be folded then tried to claim his chips- thats just plain wrong imo.

[dik9]

I understand that, but a verbal declaration is to the dealer, not a private chat between players trying to find out where they stand.