blonde poker forum

5 handed

UTG limps
SB makes up
BB shoves

UTG says 'u callin?' to Sb
Sb says 'nope'
UTG snaps with a mediocre holding he would have probs passed if not for the SB's answer

To fast for the dealer to stop it

BB loses the hand due to blatant colusion

Ok, fairest thing I can think to do is:

Kill the hand of the UTG player, return the raise amount, but leave in the preflop call amount. Take him away from the table, give him a severe talking to. 20 minute or so penalty (yes, this is crippling) with a warning that doing this again will result in outright disqualification.

Take the SB away from the table. Can't help but think his offence wasn't quite so serious here, but I'd give him the same penalty and warning of disqualification next time.

Sigh,

Definitely some penalties should be given out here, but not much can be done to compensate the big blind...

<good mood>

Give the BB the pre-call pot. Split 4th and 5th money between UTG and SB and tell them to bugger off. Suggest they stop cheating if they ever want to play here again.

<bad mood>

Waterboarding.

i think its one of those you had to be there. The sb may not of done anything wrong here and just answered a question. The utg may of just wanted a answer or was trying to put sb off so he could get heads up. it all depends on how they had played previous, how the question was put to sb.

in all fairness i cant see much wrong here except a little moody from utg trying to induce the sb to fold, poss a ban for a lap for moody out of turn

throw someonething at someone, usually a chair

BB Awarded a free kick in the balls against UTG and SB.

not sure what can be done to change the hand but one/both should be penalised somehow

above

this.

above

I don't give a fck what they thought they were doing or what they knew or didn't know.  The story as related should result in immediate penalty from the point of the infringement i.e both hands dead.

What if the sb doesnt answer, is utg penalised for asking the question?
Or what if he said yes then folds, is he colluding with the bb now?
What if he says no then calls and flips AA?

Pot is shipped to utg, both utg and SB given a 10 minute penalty, or whatever the standard penalty for the venue is.

don't see why. nothing wrong with asking the question as a moody


nothing wrong there either


nothing wrong here either is there?

don't think you can class either of the last 2 as binding verbal declarations

I've gotta pretty much agree with phatomch's first answer. in a vacuum there's nothing wrong here, with history maybe there is

Players are obliged to protect the interests of other players at all times in a tournament.  The utg should not ask the question and should be penalised for asking.  The sb should refuse to answer as whatever he says will affect the uncompleted action.  When he answers he should be penalised.

Poker is riddled with scummy ppl - if these two aren't scummy but just ignorant, a penalty will get them to think about poker etiquette.

Indeed. It is the first rule of tournament poker. Both players have failed to do so here.

Looks good. Fair enough..

UTG, SB, & the Dealer should all be Shot. Plus a 50 Orbit penalty.

Hand plays out.
SB made a verbal declaration out of turn so its not binding, he may have decided to call /raise instead of folding.
If TD feels something dodgy was going on issue warning/penalty but hand plays out

Nut both of em.

That has potential.  2 tables out, self deal, on the bubble table B have a mass row and contrive to all get a 50 orbit penalty.

Oh, and btw, I can't believe some people can't see anything wrong.  It is cheating.  Ignorance isn't a defence.  The BB is entitled to have UTG concerend about further action behind.  When UTG takes away that entitlement, BB has been cheated.

The voice of reason.

Table A contrive to nut table B en masse. Gotta be worth at least 60 orbits.

I'm not quite sure these rules exist. As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to ask anything if you are still in the hand, poker is after all information gathering. Whether it is right, morally, I cannot comment.
Without knowing whether they were mates or collusion or anything, I would say UTG did nothing more than if someone (facing a thousand pound bet) asks his opponent what his holdings were to gain some sort of advantage.
Again, the BB can answer truthfully or lie and it is obviously up to UTG to guess. The BB could have easily have had AA and wanted to induce a call? So BB (as he is still in the hand) can say whatever he wants and it is up to others to guess. Again, this is a moral issue, some people have none.
Having said the above, I can't see people getting penalized for these kind of action. If they repeat these action as proven collusion, they will then be banned from the premises. But there are tons of people angle-shooting and trys to cheat, or take advantage of others (beginners) that I think are issue much more pressing than these. If people should get a 20min penalty for speech-play, then surely out of turn bets etc should also get 10min everytime?

They should get a warning then a sit out penalty, but rarely is this enforced

Whats the dealer supposed to do here?  Put his hand over the players mouths in split second reaction time?

Why do you think many online sites have introduced chat bans when a player is allin but action is pending?

above again

As stated by others already...this really is very very wrong.

Can someone post this rule, I'm not sure if I'm being daft as everyone seems to know of this rule, bar me. Most rules I've read, allows players that are still active in the pot to make comments. I'm not agreeing that this is right, but I'm trying to address that these issues are very hard to deal with and a solution should be found worldwide and implimented. Most poker dealers do not have a thorough understanding of the game so its very hard for them to enforce or protect players if they don't actually know why these things are wrong.
Also I believe there are far more serious things a player can do to gain an advantage and often do, and they get away with it.
Again, the allin player could gain or lose an advantage depending on his hand strength or result, the player that said he might not be calling might be lying.
I am one that thinks everyone should be able to do anything within the rules to gather information. So I was for, allowing to show cards (one or both), be able to say what hands you've got, be able to interogate your opponents obviously not used in collusion purposes.

http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter15.php

By participating in any tournament, you agree to abide by the rules and behave in a courteous manner. A violator may be verbally warned, suspended from play for a specified length of time, or disqualified from the tournament. Chips from a disqualified participant will be removed from play. Players, whether in the hand or not, may not discuss the hands until the action is complete. Players are obligated to protect the other players in the tournament at all times. Discussing cards discarded or hand possibilities is not allowed. A penalty may be given for discussion of hands during the play

Apart from the rule being posted, just have a think about how you would feel if you were the big blind - it doesn't have to be just speech.

1) Whilst the UTG player is deliberating, the SB goes to the toilet.  Now the UTG player realises that SB isn't calling, and makes a thin call.  Part of the value you had as BB squeezing has now been taken away from you.  Happy?

2)"Let's just both call and check this down."  By your terms, that's ok because one or the other might only be joking and planning to double cross.  As BB, are you happy?

3) The important distinction has been made before, but just to ram it home, when h/u there is no third party left to give an unfair advantage to or take an unfair advantage from.  I am ok with a speech, exposing a card, little bit of a moody - although some cardrooms aren't.  It does get painful when someone who has seen it on TV once overdoes it, but it is VERY DIFFERENT if you start discussing what might be in your hand to someone else.  If you are BB and what they said might have been their hand does turn out to be their hand (funnily enough) are you happy that you now got that thin call based on reassurance that their cards were extra live?

4) The SB holds his cards forward in "ready to fold" mode.  He hasn't acted out of turn yet, but he might as well have.  He is trying to give the UTG the extra information he needs that the SB won't re-jam over the top or otherwise get in the way.  As BB, are you happy?  You shouldn't be.

5) If the UTG player thinks out loud that he might have suited middle connectors and the SB replies out loud that he might be folding and that suited connectors might be 37% against a typical  squeeze range and the pot might be laying the UTG player 6/4 on the call - as BB are you happy? 

Have the SB and UTG player done anything wrong yet?

HU the speech play stuff is fine.

Its because a third party in the hand is being comprimised where the problem is, you have a responsibility to other players in the hand. Here BB is clearly compromised.

Even HU there is a limit to what you can do. There is a difference between simply being HU in a hand, and HU in the tournament.

So, revealing hands, showing cards, etc. HU in a pot - NOT fine - you have a responsibility to protect the other players in the tournament.

If the tournament is heads up though, revealing cards, etc, is fine. Just the two of you left, do what you like. (to a certain extent obv)

i know there is a difference.

however i am unsure how showing cards (to everyone) whilst HU in a pot is compromising anyone else in the tournament (other than making yourself look like a tit).

Unlike a cash game, the outcome of a hand you aren't directly involved in does affect you in a tournament.  Here's a clear example - you're on the bubble and are the second shortest stack, the short stack is all in and there's only one person left in the hand.  If someone says something to suggest to the player to fold (or call), or cards are shown, then it affects you. 

in your example there are 3 players involved in the hand though so same principle as OP applies. If the BB is left to act and tries to get information as to how strong the short stack is by asking him a question, that isn't compromising anyone else imo. But if a folded player tries to encourage BB to call then he is out of order.

Slightly clearer case:

We're on bubble. You're second short stack.

Short stack pushes.

All fold to the big blind, who's not sure whether to call or not. Short stack for whatever reason decides to show that he has AA, and doesn't want to be outdrawn. BB, who had 44 now decides to fold, when otherwise he'd have probably called. Here's the catch tho: on this particular hand there'd have been a 4 on the flop. The short stack, in the act of showing his cards, has prevented the bubble bursting and hurt every other player in the tournament.

4 on the flop, lol wtf ?

Eh?  There's two people in the hand.  No one else needs to interfere but any showing of cards or revealing verbally what they have from either player affects you.

in this case the player has exposed his cards and has not undertaken speech play though, i thought exposing cards in tournament was an offence in itself (well i know it is in alot of cardrooms anyway). If the all in player said he had aces or said he was huge that would be a different matter - in my opinion.

It's obviously a slightly contrived example. But the point is, even in a heads up pot, you cannot reveal information about your hand, whether this is verbally or physically declaring it. You can't agree to check hands down. You can't agree to "keep it friendly" (i hear that one a lot :/). Etc. By doing so you are potentially damaging everyone else in the tournament.

i thought your example was where someone was encouraging BB to fold. Sorry if i got confused - i agree totally about showing cards.

I do understand what you mean btw but as a player who is all in i would try and get people to fold purely out of self interest, not to prejudice other people in the tournament. In the OP, the SB's response isn't going to affect what he does because he is folding but assists another player in making a decision that affects the other players.

I probably haven't explained this well at all.

I agree with this to some extent but why would you play a pot with the intention of checking it down, unless someone else was all in?

Even if someone is all in you obviously can't agree to check it down. But I've occasionally seen instances where people say to each other to keep the pot small because they're blind vs blind for example. It's daft but people do it.

What actually happened? Was a ruling sought afterwards? What cardroom?

This is the first rule of poker
1.   Floor People
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floorperson's decision is final.

Unfortunately there is no universal set of rules so there may be grey areas where rules are concerned. Some situations have to be looked at individually.

 Also someone saying they are folding, out of turn is completely different to actually walking off to take a piss and physically folding out of turn.Verbal declarations out of turn are not binding

People are mentioning scenarios which are completely different from OP and each case can be ruled differently

explain how is folding out of turn different to walking off? Doing anything out of turn is not on, mistakes can be overlooked (for so long) but delibrate out of turn actions should ALWAYS get a penalty. So walking off is surely the same as a delibrate fold out of turn, which people should not do...at all.
Always verbal declarations out of turn are BINDING!

Still trying to get people to post solutions to these infringments. Since everyone is upset whenever a decision is not gone their way, lets work out whats the best thing to do, rather than list examples which in time will still be there, and many more people getting upset.

Verbal declarations out of turn are not binding if the action changes before them.
In this case sb was asked a question by a player to which he replied "nope".Is this deemed a  verbal declaration or part of some speech play? Should he be allowed to call or raise if he wanted to or should he be forced to fold?

Verbally stating you are folding out of turn is different to walking off because if the action changes before it gets to you the player can act on his hand as if he had made no verbal declaration where as if you walk away from the table you are not there to act on your hand regardless whether the action changes or not  . That is how they are different

Often rulings are made but not everyone will agree with them.
Listing other examples I agree does nothing for this situation as I stated earlier there are grey areas and the situation(was it obvious collusion) has to be taken into consideration.
Not forgetting every cardroom has their own local rules which change from place to place.
It would help if OP would name the venue
IMO hand should play out and warning/penalty given to BB and possibly SB

In Grosvenor, verbal declarations are binding irrespective. If you're seat 10 and you say you're going all in, then seats 1-9 can do whatever they like and you're still going all in. If you said raise, you'll be held to raise. etc.

This is why I added this bit

Often rulings are made but not everyone will agree with them.
Listing other examples I agree does nothing for this situation as I stated earlier there are grey areas and the situation(was it obvious collusion) has to be taken into consideration.
Not forgetting every cardroom has their own local rules which change from place to place.
It would help if OP would name the venue
IMO hand should play out and warning/penalty given to BB and possibly SB

As much as I love Grosvenor they have some rules which dont apply anywhere else. It really is down to the local/house rule.
i.e A missdealt turn card is rectified differently from some other places