blonde poker forum

I returned to the Brighton card room about 6pm on Saturday night just before the start of the evening £250 comp.
I go to the top tier of the card room where the last four tables for the main event are in progress.

Jon Raab is there, there are also 3 or 4 others people there discussing this crazy rule that has happened, one of these people was blondeite, londonpokergirl..

Basically Jon said that, (relating to the hand with Frazer, Priyan and Iwan Jones) there had been action on every street and they were now on the river. Ian Frazer picks up around 12k in chips and Priyan says "I'll call you" these chips haven't gone over the line and Ian hasn't said anything - Iwan Jones then says words like, I think thats binding, Ian then puts the 12k down and a ruling is called for, Ian then says I'm all in anyway and pushes his chips forward, the floor then comes over, having listened to all 4 parties, Iwan, Ian, Priyan and the dealer the floor decide that Priyan has to call the all-in. Jon was quite adamant that it was the correct ruling and players should be more careful what they say at the table. everyone that was stood there listening to Jon remarked that it's a stupid ruling and should be changed.


The £250 F/O starts and I am on a table with a local player called Parvis (I think the locals call him Jewsy), there is a lot of talk on the table about how ridiculous the ruling was, I got moved onto James Browning table also on there was Ian Cox, Jewsy was moved onto the table with me when our table was broken up. The conversations about this ruling were the general topic of conversation on here as well.


Last hand before the first break and I'm on the button with AKh, folds round to the button (Jewsy), I say to him "come on mate, give us a walk - it's break time - you dont want to get involved". He says " I have a big hand here" then limps as does the small blind, the dealer enquires if there's to be any raise, I say " I am definitely raising but I dont know how much yet" and I look at the button, he says to me "I'll call you". I say to him "you calling me?" he answers "yes" I say "if I go all in - you call?" he says "I will call you".
I then push my chips in and say "I'm all in then", with this Jewsy then starts looking at his cards and fiddling with them, I then say "you have to call me now Jewsy, you said you were calling" he says "I dont have to call you - dont be stupid"
I said "you can call for a ruling if you like but you have to call now" with this he mucked his cards and stood up, the sb mucked, I turned the AK face up to claim the pot.
I then said to the dealer that Jewsy's chips should come into the pot now, the dealer just stared at me, I told the dealer he can get a ruling if he wished, the dealer continued to stare at me.
.
Ian Cox then said "I think you should get the floor over here" (Ian Cox was present the whole time but most of the other players had left their seats at this stage because of the break).
The floor was eventually called and Zak arrived listened to the different sides of events and then called for Jon Raab.
There was then a discussion between Jon, Zak, Dealer, Ian Cox.
The break then ended and players were called back to their seats some 15 minutes later, then there was this period of around 30 minutes where nothing seemed to be happening, in this time Jewsy said to me "If you tell them I can keep my chips then they will let me" I said that I cant tell them what to do and they will rule as they see fit, I said it was unfortunate for him, but because of the ruling that they had made earlier I didnt see how he would be allowed to keep his chips.
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.
Jon Raab has since told me that there will be a meeting this week and there will be an amendment to the rule making it clearer to players and dealers what goes as verbal and binding at the table and what constitutes as just table talk and isnt binding.
I hope they sort the rule out as if they dont you'll have situations like Roberto and Woodly being gagged for 4 days while they are at the table and players being afraid to speak at the table.

if you agree that the ruling was crazy then why did you insist that it was enforced in your hand?

He didn't say he agreed or not.
It's a plain and simple c**ts trick.

he implied he did, and said that it 'needs to be sorted out'.  I only wish in this case the player who was forced to make the call still had his cards and that he'd hit.  To have the chips taken off the guys stack after he's mucked and gone on the break is just horrible.

Poker could learn a lot from golf which has had a standard, world-wide set of rules that have been in place for hundreds of years. They are never deviated from wherever you play and they are truly respected. Hell, players even think nothing of calling penalties on themselves, that's how revered the rules are...


...so how do we have a situation in poker with so much ambiguity across the board?....the mind boggles.

i'm with avillan here. Think about it, this is a carbon copy of something that has just happened in the same casino a few hours earlier. The guy has said he will call if he raises, then when steve goes all in he folds. Who's trying to gain the advantage here? The button imo, he's trying to see a free flop by talking steve into not raising, so he has quite rightly got the rule enforced as it 'should' be, given what has happened earlier.

It's a horrible rule but if it's going to be enforced in one comp in brighton, then it need to be enforced in all.

The only strange thing about it is, what took everyone so long to come to a decision?. (Assuming Steve's version is accurate)

Call me a cynic but he said he hopes it gets sorted out. Didn't say which way he'd like it sorted out.
Having known what's happened earlier with the Frazer\Priyan debarcle he's goaded Jewsy to do the same. That's a C**ts trick in my book.

jewsy said it before steve acted..... steve confirmed what jewsy had said before moving in.

I don't know Villan but he seems to be a smart chap. He knew what he was doing by asking the questions about calling knowing what happened previously.

i dont really know him either, i met him at brighton for the 1st time. But 'jewsy' clearly said he would call any raise, therefore he should be held accountable. same theory i suppose if he says i fold before steve has had the chance to act in the BB?

Who knows, the rule is daft and needs sorting either way.

I am not sure what the problem is here, verbal action is binding, unless action has changed.  This usually applies to "out of turners".

In the first case, the action had changed from nothing (as no bet had been made or announced), if Ian had taken the 12k back and then checked, the option would still be open to check or bet.

The second instance you asked "IF you go all-in,  would you call?" action has not been made yet, you asked a question. Questions and answers between players are not binding.

Steve i didn't speak my mind at the time under advice from others and also because i think you are a nice guy, and even more so because Juicy decided to let it go but what i thought you did was the scummiest trick i have seen at a poker table in my life.

Everyone in the tournament was talking about how bad the ruling was in the main event and you obviously just sat there thinking of a way to use it, as it happened you picked on a really nice friendly chatty player, he is pretty clueless when it comes to poker but is one of the nicest guys to have on a table as he is always up for banter/table talk. You took advantage of him and its disgusting.

If it had been me you did that on i would have gone apeshit, i don't mind people beating me but people beating me dirty is just not on.

As it happens this idea of a rule that was enforced is clearly ridic and will be torched by the next event, apart from the obvious panic everyone will have at the table about saying anything there is also the massive advantage colluders can get by this rule being in force, it would be easy to make yourself have to fold or whatever by a small 'accidental' comment.

The reason it took 70 mins to make the ruling and thus ensure people had to come back who didnt make the final was that the GUKPT team had realised the ridic way the Priyan situation had been handled and instead of admitting the insane cockup that his exit was they thought better to save face and punish Juicy.


There used to be a rule where a TD uses his common sense in situations like this, i wish they had the strength to do so.

Also not a dig at Raaby who is friend of mine but i don't believe the tour director should have a say in rulings, it is the TD's job.

Apeshit lol, I would have twatted him LOL

Seriously though, I would expect the TD to issue a warning for trying to throw an angle in the second scenario. But suppose this may seem awkward if you had already made clear that the first instance was correct, although slightly different.

Making your point at the expense of another innocent player, is bad form.

spacefrog is viewing. What does spacefrog think?

he aint got time to think, he needs to get cooking ffs !!

Tout de suite :)

Many things ami, some you like some no is bad. Today is sad Spacefrog, I make a work in Belgium.

and there you have it.

End thread.

I should make it clear, i believe Steve to have a lapse of judgement rather than being a malicious angle shooter.

I understand, but insistence of a rule that he thinks/knows is wrong, to prove a point at the expense of another players comp is bad form. I understand the point making, make the point then leave it IMO. Don't insist the rule to be upheld, it's not really in the spirit of the game. I would suspect the meeting regarding speech play would have taken place anyway after the comp. I also stress that in the situations described ( as I wasn't there) that they are both slightly different scenarios.

Maybe saying angle shooting is the wrong phrase - I apologize- but imposing a bad rule that favours you is just wrong.

I read the op, whatever happened to poker being played in the spirit of the game, whenever we fk about in luton we make it a priority to have a laugh 1st, then try and make some money. Id like to think that even if a ridiculous ruling was made, players would not try and deliberately take advantage of it and try to angle-shoot each other, the games is hard enough as it is without ppl being malicious. OP, sounds like you had a moment of madness imo.

Don't know about rights, wrongs & rulings but the behaviour is just pathetic

Agreed, not only should the TD be able to make final decisions with common sense ruling the day, I think the players have the responsibility to do the same and make the game enjoyable for the greater good of the game.

I know that for many people (OP included I presume) that live tournament poker is a job and they might think things like this give them an edge, but its still a job were you need to be professional and for me this isn't. If this 'Juicy' chap (Would love to know the origin of that nickname btw) is the nice friendly, possibly fishy, player that he sounds, then its something like this that might put him off playing in future events and do his money at blackjack instead - long term its bad for the game and a circuit pros win rate.

I personally would hate to win a tournament knowing that my knowledge of the rules perhaps played a bigger part than my ability to play. At least this second incident will almost surely clarify the rules for all in future events.

This is as obvious an example of angle-shooting as i've ever seen.

Just because you took advantage of a technicality in the rules that made your play valid, it doesn't change the fact it is angle-shooting.

Just as in this scenario.

You make a raise, someone says "this is it" and shoves what seems to be all their chips into the middle and you call and show your hand. They then reveal they had a single chip back and you are now penalised for exposing your hand.

Technically within the rules at a lot of places. But angle-shooting.

When I first started playing poker live, a lot of the seasoned veterans pulled moves like this all the time on the newbies like me. At first it was intimidating since I always felt you never knew what crock of shit local rule they were going to pull on you next.

Now I realise a lot of these players were just rubbish at poker and needed the edges to stop themselves going busto.

Don't pulll stunts like this. Even if you think it will benefit you on a particular hand, realise that most players will look very unfavourably at you for doing this and it will cause you more trouble in the long term than it's worth.

When i read the updates for the priyan hand i thought frazer et al were taking the piss and now this is just as bad. In both situations both Frazer and avillan knew exacty what they were doing and wanted some free chips. This is cheating whichever way you wanna paint the picture and it really pisses me off more than anything in poker.

Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of the rulings made in Brighton...

Everyone is critiscising Steve here and obv I wasn't there, but it seems Juicy was well aware of the ruling that had been made just hours earlier? If so then to me he's just as culpable in saying 'I will call you if you go all-in' or words to that effect.

grosvenor made this rule before i left in SEPT 07, the rule is a verbal statement out of turn is binding unless the action has changed i.e someone has re-raised the original all in.

this has gone in all grosvenor's for over a year, but have they followed it ?  i think not...

Knowingly trying to benefit from what was generally considered a bad ruling a couple of hours later is very poor etiquette IMO. However Juicy's talking was stupid but to say you think he might have trapped you with aces is no defence either IMO.
Professional circuit players should be an example to the hobby players if they don't want to drive the hobby players out of the game. From reading the updates last week it appears that the amount of dead money(save for Albert) is rapidly diminishing from the GUKPT and it will only be the few sponsored players that will survive in the long term if seasoned professionals act in this manner.

Same as other ruling- was correct and rules are rules- if it had been called at the time. Its not just grosvenor that enforces a verbal action is binding even out of turn. If you play a WPT etc you will find the same applies just players dont say daft things and other players dont try and takeadvantage or angle shoot.

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.

OP is a dog
other guy is a fool for making such a stupid comment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? :dontask:

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.

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

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.

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.

the break was extended while they were discussing the hand.

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??

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.

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.

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

read this lot again and surprising that the OP posts his tale

Like saying "I mugged a granny but she was a mug being out late cause I'm a little bit waaaay, a little bit wooooooah - what do you all think"

lol @ nirvana. Quality.

One question tho, wasn't deucy, juicy, jewsy, dewi angle shooting by trying to talk steve out of raising so that he could see a cheap flop? This seems a bit like 6 of one and the same amount of the other. No?

My granny carries a bat when she goes out late

Not sure this is an angle shoot.  Poker is a predatory game isn't it, I mean you make money from the weakness of the other players, either through their bad play or lack of understanding.  It sounds to me like the Jewsy/juicy/dewi/doosy/jewzy guy has been playing long enough to know that he shouldn't be putting himself in this situation particularly on that day when a ruling has been made in the main event and everyone's talking about it.  He's not 9 is he, I mean is a grown man who understands it's his responsibility to know the rules and to accept that there are people playing who have no regard for certain etiquette's.  It seems inexplicable that the guy didn't understand he was going to be made to call the bet after he's been told by the OP his verbals are binding and everyone has been talking about the ruling from the previous tournament.  I suppose whether you think this is acceptable depends on whether you agree that it's a crime to let a sucker keep his money (just been watching Rounders).  If you say "i'm calling you if you bet" you're asking for trouble really aren't you? 

This. IMO.

Good idea to base an argument on a film about cheating at poker!

If these rules were always used then whenever myself and Paul Parker share a table we would be all in all the time!!

Wasn't basing my argument on a film. 

Celtic, I kinda buy a bit of the ticket that Juicy should protect himself if this was normal  everyday stuff.

The way this all sounds is that he was lulled in to some banter for some comedy value based on the whole thing being a hot topic. Until OP gets the chiv out

or how about. dewcee limps on the button, steve gives a big speech with, if i bet will you call? doosee says no, so steve goes all in and dewsea calls with AA. What would the ruling be here?

dewsaay would have to beat up a granny? Or would have to watch Rounders? One of these two rulings would be the common sense approach imo.

and IMO

Cant help but feel that OP has had an unnecessarily hard time over this> I dont play live that often so could have found myself in this situation I would have thought.
The subject has been discussed all night,
I get a genuine hand and am deciding how much to raise
Idiot makes a stupid comment about calling whatever the raise
So I shove.

At that stage OP shoved with the intention of a show down. No way did he think that oppo would end up mucking. Oppo is the idiot here and should have just taken the 40/60 showdown chance.

If OP version of events are accurate, he explained the situ properly and tried to stop the guy from folding.

if his shove had been with AA would it still have been an angle shoot to make the guys verbal bet stand?

I think not, no one forced him to say we would call any bet.

So why any different with AK here?

Surely you just min raise?

If you sit there discussing with the table how you think a rule is dumb and unfair in an extended conversation then go on to invoke that rule to disadvantage a player a few moments later, that is obviously not good form!


This is true and if you leave your backdoor unlocked you are asking to be robbed. This doesn't make the burglers blameless though!

Can't really compare the two situations what with one being playing within the rules of a game of cards and one being an illegal action you ought to go to jail for.

But anyway, if robbing someone who had left their doors unlocked suddenly became legal, it sort of does make the burglar blameless.  Especially if the burglar had warned you specifically a few times that he was going to burgle you if your door was open and your whole street had been discussing the new law that very day.

steve had a moment of madness here. Its very bad form imo, and surprised me a little cus steve's a cracking chap.

Whilst I have to agree this was the wrong thing to do, I think Steve is being villified far more than he deserves. Everyone should be allowed one mistake, especially if before this they have always been a very friendly and decent character like Steve has.

This was a lapse of judgement, but it was definitely not malicious. There had been alot of frustration in the air at a bizarre and unfair ruling that afternoon, and Steve's action was not born out of thinking "great, what can I get out of this for myself?" but of out frustration for such an illogical ruling.

It is a day of events that the TD and team should never have allowed to happen. Even though it is a ridiculous ruling, I am still much more concerned by the events if the ruling against Priyan technically was right. If it was, then it brings up the following questions:

- Why has it never come up before, if it has been the correct ruling since September, 2007? I can think of a number of occassions since then when the same ruling should have come up.
- Why this sudden decision to clamp down on the rule? Why were the players not warned?
-Why did the dealers seem to know nothing about it, or be prepared to react to it?

Got to admit I think the initial ruling was appalling, but the setting up of this other kid was worse.

From the events as described, the guy had not made a call out of turn, his speech was to villain, there was nothing in this which should have been binding in any way.

Pretty Scummy move IMO.

Personally, I think this is going to hurt Guinness sales badly - there is a recession on and I feel for the casinos losing an important revenue stream... on the plus side I guess I will lose some weight and get told to shut up less. God it will be so boring.

A bit like guinness, and a little more seriously :
(1) rules have to be black and white
(2) if a rule cannot be black and white, dont try to have the rule

P.S. I like Steve, like Juicy, like what GUKPT has been built up into by Bluesq guys involved....hope all can move on...

I'd like to re-iterate that we will be discussing this issue internally before the next GUKPT event and will clarify the situation regarding this kind of speech play before then.

As an aside, the TDA rules (not the Grosvenor/GUKPT ones) describe excessive chatter as unethical play and states that players who indulge in it may have penalties imposed upon them. Paul (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=334) Parker (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=334) should be very very afraid. ;)

I really don't see what there is to clarify.

The original ruling was awful and completely wrong. I'd love to know what was going through the TDs mind and the time and which specific rule he applied to make the ruling.

The rules regarding what goes and what doesn't need to be clarified with regards to certain kinds of speech play.  It is important that players know this in advance of the next event. As I have said before on another thread, it is the rules that need to be looked at, not this particular ruling. The ruling was made and stood, but it is the rules regarding all verbals going and out of turn actions standing that resulted in the ruling being made in this way. It is important for the good of the game going forward that everyone taking part in the tour knows  the rules and how are interpreted with regard to conditional statements of intent. That is why it needs to be clarified.

My personal point of view is that conditional out of turn statements should not be binding. However, I also beleive that asking an opponent what they are going to do if a certain course of action is taken (e.g will you call if I bet?) or volunteering the information out of turn (i.e that one intends to call if a bet is made), is unethical and repeated violators should be punished. I'm in favour of banter, but keep it within certain boundaries. My personal views are not neccessarily the views of everyone at Grosvenor but we all agree that it needs to be clarified for the good of the game.

to say whether the rule is a good rule or a bad rule is simple. If the hardcore circuit players think its a bad rule its a bad rule. They are the players who play the circuit events week in week out. When has it become a person who doesnt play poker at all's decision on what rules the players who pay the juice play by?

we should get a union of 200 players who play more than 10 festival events a year and draw up our own interpreation of each rule by voting and then send it to grosvenor and bsq and say these are what the players want to adhere to. If not then we wont be there.

OP sounds like a shitbag and this rule sounds like the biggest joke ever

I'd like to see this enforced on an internet scale though, just for the hilarity

"if you call and suck out im gonna kill your family"

and such statements would be hard, but amusing,  to enforce

rofl

Not sure who you are refering to rick. Most of the people who work on the tour also play the game. It is the house's job to run the game, not the players, but of course the player's opinions are taken into consideration. We are not here to run things in an obtuse way just for the sake of it. If things are not right, we seek to put them right.

'If you go all in i am going to shag Angelina Jolie'

Plz make that binding!

this happened to me at blackpool a few years ago .
i hit trip 9s on the flop against mick Fletcher ,he had 2 diamonds,
i said something like don't re raise so he just called .
turn comes another diamond,
i bet and tell him not to re raise as i will call any bet ,
he moves all in i have to call as iv made a verbal declaration ,theres no moaning no screaming .
i don't see why it has to be changed ,
when some one says there going to call no matter what ,they have to call end of .
this is not table banter ,its a verbal call .
all you lot what are calling Steve probably don't know him .
hes a genuine bloke who's trying to earn a living from poker ,its not his game to cheat ( which you lot are implying).

john while were on about Brighton can you enlighten me please on the Paul king situation in the satellite for the main event.
this is Paul's story ; 6 players left 4 seats 5 Th gets £525 .
5 players ask Paul if he wants to do a deal he says no because he is the chip leader .
the other 5 then decide to do a deal without Paul ,he then asked Ian if this was allowed ,Ian then says he is having nothing to do with it ,this is the TD for the main event .
i have never heard of there being a deal when 1 player is against it .
i know that bl sq does not have anything to do with deals ,but surely there cant allow anything when one player declines this.
BTW I'm not slagging you or anything to do with the gukpt off .
i thing this is the best thing that happened to poker in the UK.

                                                            thx
                                                                  Barry.

btw well done on your award john  ;tightend; ;tightend; ;tightend; ;tightend; ;hattip; ;hattip; ;hattip;

flushy do you mean Ben aflick .

Hi Barry,

I'm not aware of this satellite deal situation I'm afraid so I can't comment on it without knowing the full story. I will get back to you on this.

its not a problem john.

Thanks Barry. It was really not just an award for me, it was for everyone on the GUKPT. Zak, Ian, Dena, Janis, Russell, Mike, the dealers, valets, casino staff, everyone involved with making the tour happen at Blue Square and Rank HQ and those people who used to work on it and have now left ;) all deserve recognition as well.

Of course without the players there would of course be no tour, so it is to all the players of the GUKPT that I dedicate this award.

TUT you forgot the railers Raaby, Im sick of you not giving us any credit !!!

if a player says if you bet I'm going to fold and then after a bet tries to call what would the ruling be?

hand folded both players thrown out for collusion

well maybe not but the first time it happened would have all the players with gags on in future

he has to fold, obv. Rubbish rule but it's clear enough now John has explained it.

why would a player say if you bet I'm going to fold ?.
he must be a proper plank.

errrr for the reason ironside stated.........plankety plank

A player sometimes says if I bet are you going to call?
You then ,inducing him to bet ( or inducing him not to bet) , say - if you bet I will fold.

You might find these interesting. We have a feature on the Mob site where we put various scenarios to a panel of well known tournament directors and these ones here might give a clearer idea on this situation.

I realise that mods on Blonde don't usually allow links and I wouldn't usually post links, if you prefer I am happy for the mods to post the full articles in this thread as I do think that having all the top TDs opinion on this will help Jon and the GUKPT to rule on this in the future.

If You Raise I Will Go All-in
http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director2/if_you_raise_i_will_go_all-in


When is Verbal Action Valid?
http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director2/when_is_verbal_action_valid

...and this one is for Barry on when one player objects to a deal:
http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director/deals_and_collusion.html

Firstly Steve is a top bloke.

The way I see this before it spun out of control is Juicy tried to stop Steve from raising or raising too much, Steve has a very good hand, he is the short stack in the hand. Once the banter is finished he decides to put his tournament on the line with the expectation that he is being called. In effect he is calling all in. So then what, he just gets the limped chips or chip? Yeah that would be fare. Would he waste a premium hand without the banter being initiated by Juicy? Nope
The whole mucking and 70 minutes sounds horrendous but my guess is that Juicy didn't want to call (obviously) and was not willing to put his chips in especially once he mucked his cards.

Sounds to me that the Paul King sat was just that they made up the money to get an extra seat without Paul contributing, nothing wrong with that.

I had someone act out of turn when heads up in a comp. On the turn I picked up a flush draw to go with my bottom pair. Having decided how much to bet and while reaching for chips the other player says all in. The dealer also a card room manager said it stands. I pass and get shown a bluff. This was a stroke and there was no recourse or anything in the rules to prevent it  back then (06). I think that all out of turn action whether accidental or not should result in that player only being allowed to call for he rest of the hand.

Mickey Wernick this evening answered his phone while in the big blind the dealer politely told him you can't make any action, Mickey the gent he is just nodded. Perfect, dealer saw the infringement and ruled.   

 

The situation with Paul King at Brighton was this.... 6 players left and 4 seats and £660 for 5th. Paul was chip leader by quite a way and a few of the players wanted to split the £660 between 5th & 6th. Paul didn't want this to happen as it changes the way the short stacks would play. The other players then decided amongst themselves that they would just chop the £660 between 5th & 6th regardless of what Paul wanted, and if Paul finished 6th he wouldn't be entitled to the any of the money as he didn't want to do a saver. sure enough the short stacks started pushing and all of a sudden Paul was no longer chip leader. Then Paul was back in on the saver. ( i think the other players invited him back in rather than him asking to be put back) I think he went out 5th and got £330.

Oh that kind of sucks

if thats the way it happened its disgracefull. If one player objects to a deal then no deal can be done.

If the others all decide to deal anyway its collusion and a precident was set a few years ago in blackpool when something happened similar. 5 players left in blackpool event and a deal is discussed but turned down by chip leader- both shorties then agree they will split whatever they get. TD rules both must do a deal now or be disqualified so the cl agrees new deal where he asks for silly money and shorties get 5th and 4th between them without any chance to push.

in this scenario i think paul should have been automatically awarded 1st prize (one of the seats) as the other 5 players have technically colluded by doing the deal anyway. This would mean they are now playing for 3 seats and the 2 prizes- up to them if they want to do the same deal now with the remaining cash.

Well said, pity nothing was done at the time.

I was stood at the side of the table when the deal was brokered to Paul who declined it saying “lets play on for a bit” He had said to me that he would do a deal 5 handed as it would only mean each player putting in an extra £80 each to make the extra seat up. He did not disclose this vocally as he felt it would add undue pressure onto the short stack Steve Kirk as the 6th one out at this point would be getting zilch.

Steve Kirk then discussed with the players (Paul King excluded) that the next one out would receive £330 off the 4 remaining players. The other 4 players agreed to this.  They then asked Paul what he thought about this, Paul said “I’ve already said that I’m not interested in doing any deal at the moment – you can do what you like, talk to me when there’s 5 left” not realizing the implication this deal would have on him.

I immediately said to Steve Kirk and another player that this was collusion and shouldn’t be allowed as Paul King was now at a disadvantage in as much that he was the only one at the table who could leave empty handed.

The short stacks started attacking every hand in what had now become a shove fest.

Big Ian was called over (within 10 minutes of the deal being done), the situation was discussed and his response was that Grosvenor do not recognise deals. I explained that a deal had been constructed after a player had said “no” and that the deal constructed now placed one individual in an unfair situation.

He reiterated that Grosvenor do not recognise deals.

Grosvenor have a policy of all final tables being dealer dealt and they should be supervised, if it had been supervised properly once Paul had said “No” that should have been the end of the matter regardless of whether Grosvenor recognise deals or not.  Paul had been placed in an unfair situation, as the table had not been supervised. If it had been supervised they could not have let this deal happen.

Imo, When Ian had been informed of what had happened, He should have suspended play and awarded the top 4 seats with 5th in place taking the £660 or award cl a seat with the 5 in the deal to play the sat out.

Paul eventually pushed back at the constant “all-ins” from the short stacks and suffered 2 outdraws which saw him go from chip leader to 5th in chips. The other 5, seeing that Paul was aggrieved with the constant pushing then offered to cut him into the deal!!!.

Grosvenor ask for trouble when they have different house rules up and down the country, what goes in Walsall isnt allowed in Brighton i.e phones at the table, players are only looking for consistency, first card/last card, showdowns.  It would be easy enough to print off a set of rules and put these on the tables so new players coming into casino's for live play have an idea of the rules and etiquette required of them, They do this in Riley's snooker halls!!!

+1 like it!