|
Title: tedious ruling thread Post by: George2Loose on April 25, 2011, 10:35:12 PM C off limps. Sb taps the table to check. Dealer points out him he has to make up to call. He says "ok then I'm all in"
Should he be allowed to? Ruling was called Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: WarBwastard on April 25, 2011, 10:38:20 PM Tapping table same as announcing call? Should only be able to call I reckon.
Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: Cf on April 25, 2011, 10:38:36 PM Erm.. my gut says no.
This reasoning might be flimsy but I'd take his "check" as a call. Eg, blinds are 100/200 and you throw a 1000 in to call. It then gets raised to 1000 and is back to you. Tapping the table is accepted as a verbal call here. So by checking in that manner he's at best calling the bet. Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: mondatoo on April 25, 2011, 10:40:07 PM Sb has AA+
Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: Eirrabs on April 25, 2011, 10:48:13 PM Call at most. He showed zero intention to raise.
Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: Boba Fett on April 25, 2011, 10:53:48 PM All options open imo, if he wanted to fold it would surely be allowed? If he thought he was BB and checked, realised he was Sb then it is fair enough that he can be allowed to fold and not be held to call by trying to check. In that case, his attempted check cannot be held as a call and therefore he has option to call/raise/fold
Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: Cf on April 25, 2011, 11:05:55 PM Erm.. my gut says no. This reasoning might be flimsy but I'd take his "check" as a call. Eg, blinds are 100/200 and you throw a 1000 in to call. It then gets raised to 1000 and is back to you. Tapping the table is accepted as a verbal call here. So by checking in that manner he's at best calling the bet. Slightly more relevent example. Blinds are 100/200 and SB has no change so just puts 500 in. It's back around to him and he taps the table. This is taken as a call. I don't like having all options open. I think it's too open to angle shooting. Just view his illegal action as an out of turn action. He can't do higher than what he wanted to do in the first place. In this instance we view making up the SB to be the same as checking. Or something like that. Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: cambridgealex on April 25, 2011, 11:50:06 PM If he doesnt already have an oversized chip in (ie. has 100chip in for his 100small blind) then I'd say all options open as tapping the table means fuck all. If he has a 500 chip in for his small blind at 100/200, then tapping the table means call so he has to call the 200.
Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: doubleup on April 26, 2011, 12:24:22 AM It iseems to be an angleshoot - so depends on whether the TD wants to discourage angleshooting due to the bad feeling it creates. Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: borman09 on April 27, 2011, 01:15:21 PM The server rules includes a rule that directs any incoming mails into A folder and my client rule has a rule that directs mails into B folder will mails still be directed into B folder, i mean the mails should have already been directed into A folder by the time the client rule is excuted.
Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: kinboshi on April 27, 2011, 01:27:20 PM The server rules includes a rule that directs any incoming mails into A folder and my client rule has a rule that directs mails into B folder will mails still be directed into B folder, i mean the mails should have already been directed into A folder by the time the client rule is excuted. #botfail Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: skolsuper on April 27, 2011, 01:57:23 PM Not an angleshoot IMO, since he gains no info off the other players (unless the bb snap checks behind I suppose), more of a ridiculous hollywood and it seems different places have a different idea of whether hollywooding (yep) is 'cheating'. I remember the old gutshot used to be very strict that you couldn't even talk while you were in a hand.
Personally I think they should be allowed, especially hollywoods as hilarious as this one, for example when someone who goes to fold their hand utg and is stopped by the dealer because they are actually in the bb, they always grab their hand back. I've always wanted to see someone 3bet shove over a raise in that spot, would be incred Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: Cf on April 27, 2011, 01:58:36 PM Not an angleshoot IMO, since he gains no info off the other players (unless the bb snap checks behind I suppose), more of a ridiculous hollywood and it seems different places have a different idea of whether hollywooding (yep) is 'cheating'. I remember the old gutshot used to be very strict that you couldn't even talk while you were in a hand. Personally I think they should be allowed, especially hollywoods as hilarious as this one, for example when someone who goes to fold their hand utg and is stopped by the dealer because they are actually in the bb, they always grab their hand back. I've always wanted to see someone 3bet shove over a raise in that spot, would be incred See, the dealer shouldn't stop him in that scenario imo. Then his out of turn fold should stand when it comes to him. Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: skolsuper on April 27, 2011, 02:01:17 PM Not an angleshoot IMO, since he gains no info off the other players (unless the bb snap checks behind I suppose), more of a ridiculous hollywood and it seems different places have a different idea of whether hollywooding (yep) is 'cheating'. I remember the old gutshot used to be very strict that you couldn't even talk while you were in a hand. Personally I think they should be allowed, especially hollywoods as hilarious as this one, for example when someone who goes to fold their hand utg and is stopped by the dealer because they are actually in the bb, they always grab their hand back. I've always wanted to see someone 3bet shove over a raise in that spot, would be incred See, the dealer shouldn't stop him in that scenario imo. Then his out of turn fold should stand when it comes to him. You are a cold and joyless individual Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: Cf on April 27, 2011, 02:02:13 PM Not an angleshoot IMO, since he gains no info off the other players (unless the bb snap checks behind I suppose), more of a ridiculous hollywood and it seems different places have a different idea of whether hollywooding (yep) is 'cheating'. I remember the old gutshot used to be very strict that you couldn't even talk while you were in a hand. Personally I think they should be allowed, especially hollywoods as hilarious as this one, for example when someone who goes to fold their hand utg and is stopped by the dealer because they are actually in the bb, they always grab their hand back. I've always wanted to see someone 3bet shove over a raise in that spot, would be incred See, the dealer shouldn't stop him in that scenario imo. Then his out of turn fold should stand when it comes to him. You are a cold and joyless individual lol. I find it funny when someone folds their BB by accident. Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: kinboshi on April 27, 2011, 02:09:32 PM If he doesnt already have an oversized chip in (ie. has 100chip in for his 100small blind) then I'd say all options open as tapping the table means fuck all. If he has a 500 chip in for his small blind at 100/200, then tapping the table means call so he has to call the 200. Agree with the one with blue-blood. Title: Re: tedious ruling thread Post by: JK on April 27, 2011, 02:21:15 PM Dunno if its been said, but imo:
Checking in this situation is totally irrelevant. He doesnt have a check option, therefore it isnt binding to an action. When someone calls pot in a no limit game, the dealer should just lol and say try again. However, if they say "raise the pot", then its binding to a raise, as they said raise, even though they still said pot. Id call it as all options open, allin stands |