blonde poker forum

I am on this table, as it happens I am the BB

blinds 100-200


Player 1 limps UTG

Player 2 limps in MP

SB folds

BB checks


700 in pot


flop

BB checks

Player 1 checks

Player 2 bets 500

BB folds

Player 1 calls

1700 in pot

turn

Player 1 bets 1500

Player 2 goes all in for 1600

Player 1 calls the 100 extra

4900 in pot

At the conclusion of the hand it is a split pot

Player 1...not the dealer though it is a self deal comp, goes to split the pot

Hands Player 2 2000 chips

Player 2 complains, explains there has been a mistake

Player 1 refuses to accept this

Player 2, with help from the self dealer and the bb, goes through the betting round by round

Player 1 still cannot accept he has made a mistake

The floor is called, they pause the clock for the whole comp and send the players on a short break, go off to check the camera

Floor comes back "Sorry we cannot see clearly on the camera, people's heads are in the way"

The ruling is that as the size of the pot cannot be verified that an extra 500 chip is brought into the competition and given to Player 2 so that he now has circa the right amount of chips for a split pot from the size of the pot he and all players apart from Player 1 agree on.


I kid you not. 

On the face of it, utterly ridiculous....BUT, if all the players except P1 agree on the size of the pot then P2 cannot, really, be penalised because the other player is a muppet. The TD seems to have acted in the best interest of the game and fairness.

In fact the only player to 'benefit' is P1 as he now has more chips than he should. No doubt he was carparked later on!

If anyone is at fault, it's the 'dealer' for letting P1 get into splitting the pot. That's the problem with self-dealt...the 'dealer' is usually just the person handing out the cards rather than acting a 'DEALER' per se. (If you see what I mean).

In my experience, few card-chuckers have adequate knowledge of the rules and experience in the game to act as a 'dealer'. A good reason to educate oneself in the basic rules.

Pure madness!

It should not have even got to needing a ruling! Let alone an appalling decision to add extra chips to the comp!

How does one avoid it reaching the stage where a ruling is required when P1 refuses to accept the opinion of the remainder of the table?

(obviously allowing for the fact that he has taken it upon himself to split the pot, clearly this should not have been him doing this)

I hate having cameras in the cardroom, the purpose of them is not to try and recreate a hand, they are there for other reasons. IMO the TD is very weak by allowing a decision to go to the cameras. If he made a decision there and then after listening to all players this would not have happened (Is player 1 a good roulette punter?) Now any decision that needs to be made against someone will result in Chaos, all the players will do now is ask to see the camera, and hold the whole comp up again, hoping that the evidence is not viewable.

Can I ask, which part was P1 disagreeing with? The size of the bets on each round??

If thats the case, depending on the reputation of the dealer and yourself with the TD, i'm surprised he didnt just take the chips off of P1 and tell him to shut up.

Was disgusting Tighty.

He is a heavy donator in cash games, so I would not want him banned.

If he wasnt such, I would say ban them.

Out and Out cheat.

that should be irrelevant, if someone needs banning (in whatever instance) I don't care if they are a winner/loser/roulette player/husband of a director whatever...its irrelevant


as to the objection...P1 disagreed with the amount in the pot pre-flop and the amount in the pot at the end

I was disappointed the TD did not take further action, and the use of cameras to me was a "cop out"

cme on then guys name n shame  ;ifm;

no need, its the principles and the correct ruling that interests me

you guys didnt see the half of it

player 1  makes it to the final  big chip leader

he gets talked into doing a saver 4-way  gtd £800 for all remaining players winner takes the rest

player 1 then knocks out a player in 4th place  and says he doesnt want to do the deal anymore

the comp is again stopped while it is explained to him that once a deal is agreed by all players it cannot change unless all players agree

yes player 1 is a big roulette player and magic in the cash games but he is also new to poker and although might of been pulling a stroke is actually a nice fella

he has never been in this spot before  no defence i know

yeah but its the name that interests me  rotflmfao gotta make sure whose fingers to chop off when i see them in the pot next time i get a split!

I'll send you a photofit.

nice one  :)up is he a big f#ck#r?  rotflmfao

I'll send him to Leighton Buzzard on Fridays. Open invitation I'm sure.

BTW Jim, my 100% record against you all in still stands - as you didnt win the pot either.

Dream come true to find you BOTH on the flush draw vs my 2 pr

Was close to 15k in that pot as well, and all I had to do was avoid 6 outs.

he wouldnt get away with it there thats for sure!

seriously though looks like a joke ruling to me and i personally agree with dik9 about the calling of cameras, this has set a precedent and i hope doesnt lead to all comps stop starting every five mins for rulings.

who made the ruling out of interest tighty? can u tell me that much?

nice double standards, raping cheats in cash is  a fantastic punishment  tho ;ifm;

I think that the moral of the story is that TD's must have house dealers to make proper rulings.

I remember that Rob (Nightfly) would not give rulings in player(punter) dealt cash games in Gala Notts.

Not a bad judge imo.

so what did he do then let them argue amongst themselves with the last one standings decision being accepted as right?

could be interesting  rotflmfao

but not for a tournament surely?

besides the venues charge fees, part of that must involve TDing where necessary


(and dealers too, in an ideal world hence the a\bove argument would be moot)

Have dealer dealt tourneys - problem solved.

Afterall, we pay juice dont we?

I was very suprised to see NO dealers last night for what was effectively a £150 f/o

What I'm saying is that the TD cannot give a PROPER ruling in this instance.

Because the dealer is a player and thusly not impartial, any ruling is never going to be "by the book" so to speak.

Agreed, surprised and disappointed