blonde poker forum

Poker Forums => The Rail => Topic started by: stato_1 on February 25, 2012, 04:41:14 PM



Title: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: stato_1 on February 25, 2012, 04:41:14 PM
Dtd 250 6max, I look down at ak utg, open, at which point the dealer goes: “hang on a minute, I've not shuffled the cards“. Pretty funny, what now?


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: Ironside on February 25, 2012, 04:45:06 PM
you get you bet back and the deck is shuffled and redealt


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: JK on February 25, 2012, 06:51:53 PM
Depends if the guy next to you has call/raise/passed. If they have, hand carries on. If not, misdeal.

Pretty fucking lol though. How can you forget to shuffle? Its 25% of the job


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: shipitonetime on February 25, 2012, 07:15:57 PM
i thought as soon as there has been action, e.g. you making a raise then the hand must continue regardless of if there has been a misdeal of some sort? The dealer should have realised before obv, EPIC FAIL.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: scottbrown on February 26, 2012, 02:48:33 AM
I hope this was brought to the attention of the TD that was on. How new is the dealer if you know?


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: Rivertony on February 28, 2012, 02:42:23 AM
Surely your raise counts as a positive action therefore the hand has to be played out!! What actually happened?


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: scottbrown on March 01, 2012, 08:00:05 PM
In that situation there has to be a possative and negative action before the hand has to play out.

E.g
Our hero here raises with AK UTG.
Next player folds.
Dealer realises their epic fail. But the hand still has to play out. As more than one type of action has occured.

Sadly for the hero as the dealer twigged before anymore action had taken place a miss deal can be called.

Stato, Im still really interested in who did this as is Mr Brodsky when I asked if he knew about this.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: EvilPie on March 01, 2012, 08:07:13 PM
In that situation there has to be a possative and negative action before the hand has to play out.

E.g
Our hero here raises with AK UTG.
Next player folds.
Dealer realises their epic fail. But the hand still has to play out. As more than one type of action has occured.

Sadly for the hero as the dealer twigged before anymore action had taken place a miss deal can be called.

Stato, Im still really interested in who did this as is Mr Brodsky when I asked if he knew about this.

Surely that's bullshit. What if there's a raise, a 3 bet, a 4 bet a 5 bet and an all in. You've only got one type of action there.

Are you saying someone has to fold before the hand plays out?


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: scottbrown on March 01, 2012, 08:14:34 PM
Let me check with Ryan that is what he said lastnight. I was pretty tired when he was explaining it to me and I might have made a minor mistake in recalling the ruling. Something does not sound right there reading it back. If so, i'm sorry for any aggro I may have caused in that post. Gimme an hour or two to get on a break.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: EvilPie on March 01, 2012, 08:19:57 PM
No aggro whatsoever.

I just had to argue the point because Gatso doesn't appear to available to put the world to rights on our behalf.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: cambridgealex on March 01, 2012, 08:23:38 PM
From vague memory, action is considered to have taken place after the following:

3 folds
A single raise
Two limps
One limp and two folds

Or something very similar.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: WotRTheChances on March 01, 2012, 08:25:39 PM
I thought it was just two pieces of action had taken place, regardless of if it was 2 folds, a raise and a fold or anything.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: cambridgealex on March 01, 2012, 08:27:24 PM
I thought it was just two pieces of action had taken place, regardless of if it was 2 folds, a raise and a fold or anything.

Did u used to deal at gala?


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: JK on March 01, 2012, 08:42:33 PM
Pretty sure its 2 actions of any kind. TDs generally cba with remembering lots of stuff, so just make rules that can cover the majority :P


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: scottbrown on March 01, 2012, 09:27:15 PM
Its 2 actions. Sory about the mistake guys. I should have been sure I was right before posting.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: dik9 on March 01, 2012, 09:33:11 PM
Its 2 actions that involve chips or 3 without chips.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: dik9 on March 01, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
FWIW, if a shuffle hasn't taken place then a new hand has not started. Action is given back and start again. Not rocket science really.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: gatso on March 02, 2012, 03:34:24 AM
No aggro whatsoever.

I just had to argue the point because Gatso doesn't appear to available to put the world to rights on our behalf.

you're in charge of bullshit now matt and a good start you've made

I'm retiring from my policing duties as this forum is now just people posting their birdwatching photos so there's no real work for me any more


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: JK on March 02, 2012, 08:08:59 AM
FWIW, if a shuffle hasn't taken place then a new hand has not started. Action is given back and start again. Not rocket science really.

Even despite action?


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: jgcblack on March 02, 2012, 09:08:09 AM
Its 2 actions that involve chips or 3 without chips.

At DTD im 99% its this as my brodsky has told me before....


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: JK on March 02, 2012, 09:40:59 AM
Its 2 actions that involve chips or 3 without chips.

At DTD im 99% its this as my brodsky has told me before....

For all future rulings mate, if rich (dik9) posts, its gospel ;)


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: dik9 on March 02, 2012, 11:46:02 AM
PMSL ty JK :) but DTD's rules page has changed a little by the looks so somethings may be different.

But yes even if there has been action as a new hand has technically not started until the first riffle. Say for instance a dealer sits down with a new set up, a player notices they haven't been shuffled, he now knows everyones hand and what the board is going to run lol, the dealer will only clock on when the board is dealt so significant action would have taken place, the hand would have to be voided and there should be 2 minutes grace for the TD to kick shit out of the dealer :)


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: kinboshi on March 02, 2012, 11:52:55 AM
PMSL ty JK :) but DTD's rules page has changed a little by the looks so somethings may be different.

But yes even if there has been action as a new hand has technically not started until the first riffle. Say for instance a dealer sits down with a new set up, a player notices they haven't been shuffled, he now knows everyones hand and what the board is going to run lol, the dealer will only clock on when the board is dealt so significant action would have taken place, the hand would have to be voided and there should be 2 minutes grace for the TD to kick shit out of the dealer :)


Is the two minutes specific to DTD, or is that a standard rule everywhere?


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: dik9 on March 02, 2012, 11:54:40 AM
TD's discretion, sometimes a good 2 hour face pounding is warranted.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: kinboshi on March 02, 2012, 11:57:00 AM
TD's discretion, sometimes a good 2 hour face pounding is warranted.

This is the problem with poker rules.  There needs to be consistency.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: dik9 on March 02, 2012, 12:01:49 PM
TD's discretion, sometimes a good 2 hour face pounding is warranted.

This is the problem with poker rules.  There needs to be consistency.

Totally agree, I shall write to Matt Savage and ask him to include at the next TDA summit for discussion, but for the meantime as long as the dealer is in pain then it suffices.


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: smashedagain on March 02, 2012, 12:04:43 PM
TD's discretion, sometimes a good 2 hour face pounding is warranted.
my wife warrants this but i cant seem to last more than 30 seconds


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: dik9 on March 02, 2012, 12:07:35 PM
TD's discretion, sometimes a good 2 hour face pounding is warranted.
my wife warrants this but i cant seem to last more than 30 seconds

I've told you before its -EV to go all-in with the nuts


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: smashedagain on March 02, 2012, 01:29:19 PM
TD's discretion, sometimes a good 2 hour face pounding is warranted.
my wife warrants this but i cant seem to last more than 30 seconds

I've told you before its -EV to go all-in with the nuts
:)


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: scottbrown on March 02, 2012, 03:17:17 PM
TD's discretion, sometimes a good 2 hour face pounding is warranted.
my wife warrants this but i cant seem to last more than 30 seconds
Please sir, think through your words ;)

And Rich, fancy giving the new TDs some training in ass whooping?


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: ChristieEllis on March 03, 2012, 07:56:56 PM
SHOCKING


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: poker_dealer on March 05, 2012, 04:19:32 AM
Uuumm..how did UTG get dealt AK from an unshuffled deck? :/


Title: Re: pretty funny ruling question
Post by: titaniumbean on March 05, 2012, 04:35:13 AM
Its 2 actions that involve chips or 3 without chips.

At DTD im 99% its this as my brodsky has told me before....

For all future rulings mate, if rich (dik9) posts, its gospel ;)


lololol
TD's discretion, sometimes a good 2 hour face pounding is warranted.

This is the problem with poker rules.  There needs to be consistency.



So much win  Ahrt