blonde poker forum

playing live tonight on a board of

 4h 5h Jh  3c  2h there is a flurry of betting on the flop, some trappy checks on the turn and "raise, re-raise, re-reraise, all in" in the first 25-50 level of a 10,000 chip self dealt comp....


I am perplexed, a nut flush for one but what on earth can the other have to push 10,000 chips into the pot on level one...


soon all is revealed....

Mateyboy #1 shows   Ahrt Kh

Mateyboy #2 shows  Ahrt Qh

uproar, much jibbering and jabbering ensues and then the TD has to make a ruling...

It was a very very interesting ruling...my gast was flabbered...

what is the correct ruling?

hand void chop it

M boy #1 wins.

Well it should be a dead hand, chips returned, you said it was an odd ruling so lets say the AK flush beats AQ flush!

TD resigns, goes to live in Orkney.

Mateyboy 1 has to win, he has AK high flush :P

Ooops flushy beat me to it

did they move the shortstack ?

the shortstack was ordered outside with the dealer to be pelted with rotten fruit.

Its routine in these parts after the blonde thread.

Disqualify both players from the tournament, but leave their chips in play.

First one to do Red's crossword wins?

excuse me we have enough donkeys in this part of the world without another one

void hand,

it should be a void hand..but the odd ruling bit tells it wasn't.


High card it for the pot?

Both Ahrt s dead and it's K flush v Q flush using the 4 hearts on board?

I'd say the ruling should clearly be a void hand and all chips returned to their original owners.

Don't they check the decks at the start of the comp?

The right decision is that the hand is void and all chips returned to their previous owners.

You said it was an odd ruling.  Did they play rock-scissors-paper to decide who won the hand?

This is the 'logical' rule but in practice it might be difficult to work out who put what into the pot, especially if others were involved in the hand for a while too, so they might not do this on 'practical' grounds.

If both players got their chips in believing that they held the nuts then I see no alternative other than to chop the pot between them.  However, on this board neither player could think that their hand was the nut hand as there's a possible straight flush out there, so perhaps this would justify them awarding the pot to the AK flush as the best non-nut hand.  It'd be a debatable ruling, but would have some logic to it in this case.

Anything other than one of the 3 alternatives above would be hard to justify, in my view.

the young callow TD looked nervous. MB #2 in particular was agitated. Not helped by MB #1 being the self dealer and an air of suspicion was malevolently present.

the TD's ruling was that both  Ahrt  were dead and thus the  Kh high flush won the lot to double MB #1 up over the  Qh flush

In this respect therefore we can see that the emergence of the  2h on the river was crucial, with hindsight.

At this point MB#2 went bananas, pleading that he had put his chips in with the nuts and the ruling was a travesty. Suggestions that it was the "near nuts" not the nuts fell on deaf ears, drowned out in a cacophony of blue filled air.

MB #1, a devlishly good looking, urbane and literate chap offered to chop the pot, which had been played heads up, and split the blinds. He accepted that it was an unpleasant situation for the MB #2 to be in and whilst he accepted the logic of the ruling he thought that the "spirit" of the game demanded an equitable solution and furthermore would get a young inexperienced TD out of a hole.

The young TD grabbed the olive branch handed to him by MB #1 with both hands. MB #2 calmed down. Play resumed

A flock of young nubile women immediately began to railbird MB #1, attracted not only by his cogent and lucid reasoning but also by his sportsmanship. MB #1 accompanied several home at the conclusion of the comp, which he won in a canter.

Ok, I made the last paragraph up.

very gentlemanly of you tighty, and the decision that should have been made in the first place by the TD imo.

a very nice offer from the MB #1, a devilishly good looking, urbane and literate chap. I take it tighty was MB#2?

it is the desicion the TD should have made IMO but well done on making the offer.

I say sack the TD.

was the deck counted afterwards etc?

was a card missing or was there an extra Ah ?

I think it's safe to say there was an extra Ah afterall..there were two in the deck ;)

I think whoever was dealing should be dragged outside and put in the stocks.

the holes in the stocks weren't big enough

I say train the TD

Sack him, clearly no poker sense at all.

no no, new cardroom, inexperienced TD left in control when shouldn't be

He needs help to develop not throwing to the wolves.

True..otherwise he would have known to frisk you before you came in ;)

How could he possibly be left in charge if he cant get this right.

yes but's not a reason to sack him


the people in the casinos that decide late in the day to get a piece of the poker action need to train and recruit staff of suitable experience....

So sack him and train him properly! He should not be in the position of TD.

as with a lot of casinos, cardroom staff have to double up as TD if they are the most senior on shift


thanks for your guide to gaming employment law anyway, lol

So you don't think someone with clearly very little understanding can be left as the TD of a comp?

you think thta was prickly  work this one out


this took place at the aviation club at the euro finals in paris.

heads up;  mb1 bets mb2 folds , dealer starts to push chips towards mb1 when mb3 pipes up sayin whoooooooo i got cards.


mb1 has his cards in his hand and exposes one of then to mb3......

the technical director old frog face comes over ,, and zeys to ze mb3  wat card did you see , ace hearts was reply , td says to mb1 do u have ze ace of hearts in your hand , mb1 says yes .


wat is ze ruling monsieur................................................................................


ps i know i have told some of you so be easy

cards of MB1 are mucked and 3 gets his chips?

non