blonde poker forum

Last night at Luton (The Grand Prix qualifier)

A guy announces "Raise" from early position, puts in his "call" bet, and while counting his chips for the raise, 4 people fold behind him.

He is then told that HIS hand is dead as more than 3 people have folded after him BEFORE he has made his raise.

Seems a bit harsh - specially in a self dealt tourney.

In the end, the decision was overturned after 20 minutes of arguing.

What do you think?

I think that is stupid! He has no control over what other people do.

It's a bad ruling, and I only need one guess as to who made it!

Didn't tikay mention this rule before?

Seems ridiculous to me!

The rule is in force at Grosvenors, but NOT if the guy has verbally declared his intention


If he says nothing and three people pass out of turn behind him, his hand is dead, at Grosvenor Luton anyway.

What a garbage rule!

If the guy was taking the mickey by dwelling for a ridiculous amount of time while 'pondering' his raise then maybe that's different, but as a general rule its complete crap.

What's the justification for it, Tighty?  Any ideas?

Sheriff

the person making the ruling here has applied the actual rule incorrectly


If you have yet to act and 3 people fold behind you your hand is dead

If you have declared what you are going to do and, especially in a self deal game where it is prone to happen, 3 people fold behind you your hand is NOT dead


As to justifying the actual rule, beats me!

There was a big debate about the rule a while ago Paul, tikay started it.

Yeah, I thought so James, couldnt be sure though without searching - and I'm lazy! lol

Thats why i didnt post a link to it aswell, lol.

Seems an odd rule though.

Correct - this was the Rule - and, more importantly - the INTERPRETATION of the Rule - I referred to after the last Luton Fessie. Brian Sadler's son bet several folks that this rule DID exist, & he scooped of all of us!

I Posted it on here, & to my astonishment, several folks felt the Rule was reasonable, as I recall.
 
Just goes to show, different strokes for different folks.

One lives in hope of unified Rules.

This rule, if a rule at all in this case is a complete BOS (bag of sh..e) I know we had a discussion on a similar subject a while back and whilst some people said the rule was correct, I don't think it applies in this particular case although I don't recall the circumstances around the rule when tikay posted it.

In this case, the guy clearly announces raise and is counting out his chips for the raise amount. The three other players have done something akin to having the "fold" button ticked online. However, the person has not completed his move yet (hes still counting) so these players are in effect folding out of turn. Wasn't the rule stating that if you cause more than two people to fold out of turn your hand is dead?

I think common sense prevails here. Otherwise its open to abuse by three or more people.

That is an understandable rule and is probably fairly universal.  As I have said before the majority of the personnel running British poker have no idea of the intent behind a rule and the result is the nonsense recounted by the original poster.

Absolutely awful rule.  The guy has stated raise, and the person who is raising and doing it  correct is being pulled up for it, because of other people's bad poker etiquette

Surely the dealer should have said something aswell instead of letting this happen!!

Needs changing asap

Although the folding is out of turn effectively, the players doing the folding (unless they know of the way the dealer will apply this very rule) are simply speeding up the game whilst he raises.

Obviosuly a misapplication of said rule and Im glad it did get overturned.

its a self deal comp

if you announce raise, put in your call then whilst thinking there are more than 3 folders- you should be restricted to min raise ( certainly not folded). Whilst the folders are wrong (domino effect does occur) you do have a respnsibility to "protect your raise" if you dont apply this rule then the raiser can allow folds to occur gaining an unfair advantage over others yet to act- ie can modify his raise as less people to act.

 Incidently this happened on the bubble in aruba- and jack mcclelland ( think this is his name) the  tourny director made this ruling.All very heated but confirmed after by a number of knowledgeable players/ administrators. ( I thought it was wrong initially but can see the sense of it)

Why? You have verbally indicated your intent to raise. Maybe its a throw back to lots of pot limit comps being the norm in the UK, but usually players will put their call part of the bet in first to determine the size of the pot to subsequently raise.

Slightly off track but when I'm playing pot limit, and I bet the pot. I say raise, put my call in, then say pot. Then the dealer counts the pot total and I put the chippies in.

Any dealer should know what pot will be when its your go to act, all this "put the call in first" lark is BS. To be honest any player should aswell!!!

Anyway Mikky you dont seem to get the point, if i am in MP and i say raise, then the next 3 fold leaving me just the blinds, i can now raise less than i was going to as i have basically nicked position!

Yes you should be horsewhipped for orchestrating three people to fold out of turn.

Oh no wait, you did nothing wrong. So you gain a marginal advantage because three people nothing to do with you weren't paying attention. Tough.

You are more disadvantaged by having your raise restricted than you are advantaged by knowing that the three people next to you weren't going to play their cards to a raise in my view.
 
If anyone should be punished, it should be the people acting out of turn, in particular the one to the raiser's left. I think it's impractical to deduct chips/ sinbin them and perhaps a tad over the top, but they could be forced to wear a cap saying "I'm a nobhead who acts out of turn" for a round. This will work as a deterrent for most (not all) people.

This rule is far more mature and apt than the one in place.

In all seriousness, I think that's the best suggestion I've heard on this issue.

This is not school! The rules are no there to punish people they are there to keep the game fair! Yes it may not be your fault, but you have gained from this, this has to be leveled out, this i imagine is the only way to do it.

Now i agree those who pass out of turn should be warned, my real pet hate is people looking at their cards and say passing on the button as they run out for a cig, this should incur a time penalty IMO.

I agree, anyone leaving the table for a ciggy, shouldnt be allowed back for at least 3 minutes :)

I realise that the hurt from being used as your prefect's toastrack for so many years still cuts deep flushie but punishment is not the sole tenure of schools.

It occurs in poker in many instances and in fact in your post, you specify a punishment that you think should take place!

Swear in a comp, expose your cards, put your hand in the muck before a hand is finished, act out of turn, string bet, collude, cheat in some other way.......all these are examples of actions that are punished in particular places. 

In this particular example, the person being DISADVANTAGED ( i've used this word to forestall any further emotional reaction you might have to the word punishment) is the person who has not made any mistake or sought to get any advantage.

That he has incidentally been handed a slight advantage by the mistakes of others is not a reason to now not only remove that advantage but DISADVANTAGE him further. Yes he gains slightly by having foreknowledge that the three people to his left will fold.

But it is a much bigger disadvantage that he has his raising ability crippled as he is tied to a particular raise or has his hand killed.

THAT's not fair.

I can only think that this original rule about three people passing would be to prevent someone hiding their cards until others have acted thus gaining an unfair advantage. Perhaps in the early days of the cardroom some people used to try this on and therefore this "rule" was implemented.

Rather like the "betting out of turn" stroke that quite a few used to pull when a bet out of turn did not go. They would deliberately bet out of turn feigning strength trying to induce players acting before them to check.

 
In this particular example, the person being DISADVANTAGED ( i've used this word to forestall any further emotional reaction you might have to the word punishment) is the person who has not made any mistake or sought to get any advantage.

That he has incidentally been handed a slight advantage by the mistakes of others is not a reason to now not only remove that advantage but DISADVANTAGE him further. Yes he gains slightly by having foreknowledge that the three people to his left will fold.

But it is a much bigger disadvantage that he has his raising ability crippled as he is tied to a particular raise or has his hand killed.

THAT's not fair.


[/quote]


more than a slight advantage in a lot of situations-also I agree that initial folder is  main problem- but like I said you have a resonsibility to protect your raise. you will not have a problem about having your raise limited if you do this- ie take some responsibility for your own actiion (ie your raise) rather than complaining when you dont and you have price to pay.....

Exactly, you should stop the people passing out of turn.

One Word - "Oi"

all it needs.

rotflmfao ;topman;

Actually, since poker is a game based around captialising on the mistakes of others, I think this falls within the boundary quite well :) What does slansky say?

In all seriousness though I think this is a very good point and the person should not be disadvantages through no fault of his own.

As to flushys comment about knowing the pot etc etc. In self deal you rarely get that.

I don't agree that you should have responsibility to police the table whilst making a raise. Why would you? If a fight breaks out during your raise, are you charged with sorting that out? How about it someone fancies a rum and coke during your raise. Toodle over to the bar and get it? Maybe the button has a sore neck during your raise and you could go give them a little soothing massage! Unless it's isabell mercier **** that.

Besides which, even if you ARE charged with policing the table while playing the game, how is it your responsibility if you are UTG, announce "RAISE", start counting out your chips and UTG+1 folds so he can ogle the waitress, UTG+2 who was never playing is only waiting for UTG+1 so he can instantly chuck, and does so, swiftly followed by UTG+3. The domino effect that occurs all the time kicks in before you even have a chance to react.

2 seconds after you have announced raise, you are having to muck your hand/ be restricted to a min raise due to a natural progression of events entirely beyond your control.

This is ugly and unnatural.

And easily open to abuse by the most disorganised group of colluders who are sat close together.

This rule punishes the raiser for actions largely beyond his control. He has told the table to stop their activities by announcing raise. That is as far as he need to go with table control. If there were some inordinate pause between the word raise and him putting some chips in, then fair enough, there is justification in penalising him for the sake of a smooth flowing game.

To me this is the kind of archaic nonsense that holds poker back and makes it look shabby compared to other sports.

 rotflmfao

I love the game n stuff, but it's hardly a sport.

If the dealer accidentally mucks your cards do you think you should be able to get them back out of the muck cat?

Beautifully put. Well said Mr Cat.

lol yes my bad.


no. protecting your cards at all times is a different kettle of flushies to policing the entire table's behaviour any time you wish to make a raise.

not police the table- protect your action i did try using small words cat using inane irrelevant examples (fight/ drink/massage) not helpful. disorganised colluders??? abusing this??? not sure where you have encountered this ( maybe you made it up?- hmm not sure) but I would change card rooms.  The point is this that is more than 3 ( that would be 4 or more) fold you are limited, I would be upset if it happened to me  through no fault of my own ( fold before my raise then domino fold but I would be equally distressed if i had raised and then it were a reraiser being allowed to decide his reraise size  without the potential threat of others to act- this would be more than a little unfair on me. this rule is about balancing the fairness to all players. again.... not about policing the table, just protecting (or policing if you like) your own action. perhaps you could consider the scenario i have given  ( and therefore perhaps the bigger picture) before more sarcy (albeit witty) arguements against this.

PS it is with great sorrow that i find myself agreeing with flushie, however even a toastrack can be rght sometimes

Once you join the dark side there is no turning back.

lol

lol- ----------forgive me sensei