blonde poker forum

Hi Mods, please feel free to move this post to any other relevant thread if required.

Last night at DTD mini deepstack. Level 1, I am sharing the table with Red Dog. I am in the mid position with AQ, folded to me , raised to 250. Cutoff is a young guy who 3 bets to 700, folded back to me, I call ( Pot 1550). Flop Q9Q rainbow. I check, he bets 1100, after a  bit of dwell, I call ( Pot 3750). Turn 6. I check, he checks. River another 6. Now, after 25 secs, I picked up a 5k and 1k chip and put it across the line ( which I think consider as a bet of 6k). Cutoff says call and just put 1500. I immediately turned my hand over. Now, cutoff says he just wanted to call 1500, now that my hand is exposed. Dealer called the TD. TD's ruling was: I only get the 1500 and the cutoff serves one round penalty.
Is this correct? Shouldn't I get another 4500?

Very surprised that you didn't get the full 6k.
Did the dealer announce the bet size?

Unfortunately the dealer didn't announce the bet size David. As everyone knows I have deliberately put 6k into a pot of 3750, I assume even the dealer thought that my bet was valid and didn't think of announcing it.

This...

Is there something we are missing ? DTD are normally on the ball and cant see a reason why it shouldnt be the full 6k (even accounting for the massive river over bet)

I can only assume that the TD has given the villain the option to fold

The guy should of had to put 6k in pot I have no idea who made the ruling but think either there is more to this or they need to explain it or everyone is going to start angle shooting

as told very bad ruling

At what stage Guy ?

As told I agree ....so thats why I asked are we missing something...normally more to these things

After he puts in 1500 and then sees the winning hand. I'm just trying to think as to why he isnt forced to call.

Especially as it is very en vouge to call river all ins by flicking in 1 chip at the moment

Who's the TD take makd this decision . Ifs the bet is 6k and is called, the he gets 6k . Simple as that .

hmmm its obv reasonable that he thought your bet was 1500 rather than the large overbet.  There is a rule that covers this kind of thing in nl games:

 Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered needs some protection. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.

Example: On the end, a player puts a $500 chip into the pot and says softly, “Four hundred.” The opponent puts a $100 chip into the pot and says, “Call.” The bettor immediately shows the hand. The dealer says, “He bet four hundred.” The caller says, “Oh, I thought he bet a hundred.” In this case, the recommended ruling normally is that the bettor had an obligation to not show the hand when the amount put into the pot was obviously short, and the “call” can be retracted. Note that the character of each player can be a factor. (Unfortunately, situations can arise at big-bet poker that are not so clear-cut as this.)

Yes Guy! You are right. exactly after he puts in the 1500. How its right that he has the option to fold after seeing the winning hand??????

I understand.....assuming there was nothing wrong with the 6k bet though it appears then that the TD has let the guy off for his own mistake ( basically not paying attention )

Good balance there.

There is no doubt that the Hero has SOME culpability here. It is wrong to automatically assume (I am aware of the modern fashion which Guy mentioned, but it is not enshrined in the rules afaik) ) that when the guy chucked 1,500 in, he was calling the full bet. Always best to clarify first, & we must accept SOME responsibility here. I bet 6,000, is that a 6,000 call?

All a bit unfortunate really, but no big deal. The blame is not wholly with the villain &/or the TD, imo.

Again I'm no rules expert, but I'm envisaging that he is allowing villain to act as thou your hand isn't exposed

Thanks for the post doubleup! it does sums up the situation I totally agree Tikay,  that the mistake on my part is not saying "6k" when I bet the amount. Lesson learnt! Still dont understand this concept of "not understanding the bet wagered"

Don't ruling says , " if u announced call , u called the full amount ?" #verbalstand

As you're not obligated to verbally announce the size of the bet, in the position of the villain I would certainly want to know how much the bet was before announcing call.  As soon as he says call I would have thought the villain has to pay the full amount.

Based on this ruling, if the villain goes all in do I just have to not ask for a count and only pay the amount of chips I thought he had?

The other way to look at this is from the point of view of the villain.  We're effectively holding the nuts and when he says call I would be more concerned about slow-rolling him at this point.  If he says call and we don't immediately turn our hand over and get into a debate about the extra then do we get accused of slow-rolling?  How can we assume that he doesn't know how much we have bet?

Villian never asked whats my bet, he said he assumed 1500 was my bet and called 1500 when actually I bet 6k, again without declaring 6k.

A one round penalty could be good value for a cheap showdown.

Exactly, but you certainly don't have to verbally declare your bet size when you put two or more chips in anyway.  Theres no way that you can be expected to a) confirm the villain understands the size of the bet (responsibility of the villain / dealer) AND b) not turn your cards over quickly once the villain says call.

The all in analogy certainly works for this situation.  You push your stack forward, villain says call and throws out some chips.  The chips he threw forward don't cover it so he can refuse to pay any more because he didn't ask how much the bet was?  Something doesn't sound right about this.

The short of this is you have legally bet 6000, and the villain has verbally declared call.  I fail to see how you can't get paid from here.

Dunno how the bettor can be culpable for anything in this situation. He shouldn't want to alert the player he is massively overbetting by announcing the bet size also. Mistake is fully on the caller for not checking the bet size correctly and I don't think there should be a rule to protect them. If they announce call or flick in at least 1 chip they are on the hook for 6k. Unlucky, clarify the bet size in future

The ruling I referred to would apply if for instance you said allin and hid the high value chips in your stack.

I think a lot of you are overlooking that villain put in the 1500 chips when he said call.  It seems very likely that he thought the bet was 1500 and that it was a gross misunderstanding of the kind refered to in that rule.

I dont think its lesson learnt as you did nothing wrong ....you dont need to announce "6K"

As long as you put /push your chips over the line in one fluid motion your job is done ,its then down to the dealer to announce your bet.

The villain then has 3 options Pass ,Call , Raise  , any questions with your bet or pot size etc can be directed towards the dealer

Id be interested to hear Tom's opinion on this as a neutral to add balance.

Lets look at this from the other angle. If villain had made the call with the 1500 chips and revealed the winning hand would he of received all of your 6000 bet?

I was at the table but was distracted at the crucial moment, nevertheless I was so surprised by the ruling that I questioned the TD about it in private.

I'll tell you what he said when I get a minute.

Lol @ vinodh should announce his bet. You are not obligated to announce bets if you are putting the exact amount you want to bet. As described, seems a ridiculous ruling, if he shoved 30k and the guy puts in 300 and says call, and then says oh, I thought it was 300, he is therefore getting to showdown for 29700 less than he wants to pay. And that seems fair to people?

What would you rule if villain won the pot? 6k? 1500? still give an orbit penalty?

Looking forward to what the TD has to say Tom! cheers

Did you read the rule I quoted?

It clearly states the circumstances where the rule applies and that it is up to the TD to assess whether he thinks it is a genuine misunderstanding - obv there is no way that your example would be treated in the same way as OPs situation.

the 500 chips and the 5k chips are a completely different colour, seems a pretty clear rookie mistake on callers part imo ship the 6k

According to the TD, no one announced the bet size and the villain did not say 'call', he just dropped 1500 in and the hero immediately flipped his cards over.

Villain claimed it was a genuine mistake and he would never have called 6000.

The TD's view was that both parties should take some responsibility.

Hero should not open his hand until he is sure the bet has been called. As it was there was no verbal call declaration and not enough money had been put in to the pot.

Pretty similar colours in the lighting. Seen 5K and 500 chips misplayed before tbh.

ridiculous ruling.  If a chip goes over the line its a call, doesnt matter the denomination

lol live poker

Horrific ruling! Angling season is upon us! Dtd the clarify IMO

@celtic

hopefully sorted your quotefail.   ;)

If you read that rule (which may or may not be used at DtD), there is clearly a lot of discretion involved.  This example and your other example are simply not credible "gross misunderstandings".  It is also interesting imo that OP "immediately" turned over his hand exactly as in the example in the quoted rule.  

The rule I quoted is there to protect players from being angleshot (not for a moment suggesting that OP was doing this) and from what I know of the TDs at DtD there is no chance that this or any similar rule that allows discretion would be capable of being used by players to gain an advantage.

edit quotefail terminal  >:(

I'm the worst at quoting when on a phone :(

Can someone explain to me how that rule protects the villain from angle shooting?

As far as I can work out, vinodh made a legit bet, the villain said call, threw some chips in, that didn't add up to the bet, saw he had lost, then said he thought it was only 1500.

Don't like it, personally.

I think that rule opens up a far greater amount of potential angle shooting than it protects from.

To be honest, putting chips in to the pot when facing a bet is an intent to call. In my opinion, there's more justification for chip to be returned if the dealer announces a wrong amount than the situation presented in OP.

But they have their own rules, and I am not versed in them to comment further.

The call should be 6k, its covered by the accepted action rule within the TDA rules which are most commonly used rules around the world.

The responsibility is on the caller to know what the bet is, he can ask the player or the dealer.

Im on my phone so cannot fully quote the "accepted action " rule but it is there to cover such instances.

I can see the logic of the ruling in this case and I think there should always be a "common sense clause" to enable TDs to make sensible decisions.

However...

...I'd be annoyed if I lost 6k on the river as the villain in this case. Jolly annoyed at myself for not seeing how much the hero had bet.

There is a "common sense" rule it comes under Rule 1 of the TDA .

I can't see how the bettor is held responsible here? He has placed his bet out clearly , he does not have to announce anything. The responsibilty is totally on the caller in this instance. The oppurtunities for angle shooting would be great if he wasn't made to call the full 6K

There is one chip-set at DTD where the 5k chips are purple and I once failed to notice that a player was using his last one as a card-protector on a red deck and wrongly assumed that he was all in so I exposed my hand.

If one of those purple 5k chips was directly under a 1k chip I could understand him mistakenly thinking that there must have been a red 500 chip underneath and that the bet was 1500.

The TD's job is to ultimately give what he thinks is a fair ruling not to adhere strictly to the letter of the law come hell or high water as that is when bad rulings occur, so I'm assuming that the TD knows the guy who made the mistake and considers him to be a straight up guy and the mistake to be genuine.

How about if the TD doesn't know him? He could still be a straight up guy who made a genuine mistake but now we're saying that the TD can make a decision based on his personal knowledge of the player?

That's a pretty dangerous road to take.

So do you think the ruing was fair to the guy who bet 6k Ralph?
I appreciate your opinion where you cant always follow the letter of the law, but when there are specific rules in place it best to try to, otherwise there will be the possibility of angle shooting in the future. There also has to be consistancy with the rulings that are made

But it isn't about that. It's about making the best and fairest decision possible on the information available. It has to be case-by-case, but there also needs to be a basic position - an "in a vacuum" ruling - so that a decision, when challenged, can be justified.

For me, the starting point should be the call is 6,000. Then, TD decides whether there is a good reason to stray from that position. If he is satisfied that the player genuinely intended to call 1,500, I think it might be fair to allow what would be a highly unusual variation from the norm.

Still don't like it, though.

yeah but rule 1 is referenced in this section.

I really don't know why everyone is going "omg everyone will be angleshooting now".  TDs aren't stupid.  This scenario involved an overbet that could have been confused for a smaller bet AND a player putting in chips equal to the smaller bet AND a player instantly turning over his hand before the dealer could intervene or clarify the situation.

How would you see this ending if the hand strengths were reversed???

I'm not specifically defending the ruling itself Craig.

Just saying that these rulings are not black and white and that the TD's have a difficult job and ultimately have to go with either their gut-feeling when a situation like this arises or rigidly stick to the letter of the law.

I think I've seen more bad rulings occur when the letter of the law has been adhered to inflexibly than when common sense has been applied, although obviously favouritism could be and has been a problem in the past. Not at DTD though.

It's not cries of omg angle shooting.

I struggle to understand why it is difficult to understand why it's somewhat disconcerting that an individual can bet 6,000 and an individual can instead place a lesser amount in the pot - and then claim they thought it was less and be given amounts back.

You're penalising the player that has bet out for what reason? If you don't know what the bet is, ask for the dealer to confirm. If it was a bet of 600 instead of 6000 and player b places 1,500 in the pot to which the dealer says "raise" and player B says - I meant to call, do you allow it to stand as a call or is it a raise?

Rule1 was enforced in this instance it seems but there is a specific rule to cover this situation.
You have to be there to make a judgement call, you cannot do it by reading about it on a forum . All players have to be protected not just the guy who wasnt paying enough attention.
It will be hard now for the accepted action rule to be enforced in the future and what players and TD's both want, is consistancy

It starts to feel as though the player in question may be known to some of those posting here.

I have to say the decision is disconcerting.  Having never been to DTD and hopeful of making the trip down from Glasgow sometime, this decision reeks of incompetence to me.

If the info in the OP is correct, its pretty straight forward decision.

Would be a riot up here if any other decision had been made in a Scottish cardroom.

For the record, I've no idea who it was.

Not sure that this specific situation can get reversed as hero is obv polarised and wouldn't be likely to show instantly if he was bluffing.  That said I agree that someone might be able to take advantage of an unusual set of circumstances (though I can't think of them at the moment).  I don't agree that after this ruling everyone is going to be saying "oh I thought he was betting a 10th of the pot, do I have to call?"

actually the first time I came across the rule I quoted above was after a decision in the Glasgow Alea in a £200 comp.  A player bet 1400 and another player called 400.  The ruling was that it was a genuine mistake.  I though this was the wrong decision at the time, but there were no riots  :D
 

Please, lets not exaggerate. We don't know if the info in the OP is 100% accurate -  it quite often isn't in ruling threads- and using words like incompetence and riot is way over the top

The TD concerned has been pointed to this thread, and talked to Simon Trumper about it, by the way

We've all witnessed players pretty much insta-mucking when called on the river so it doesn't seem to take that much imagining to me.

Fwiw I don't think the ruling here opens up the possibility of future angle shoots, but I do think the ruling is wrong.
I'd be interested to know who the beneficiary of it was.

I do not know either of the players David.

My view is totally impartial and completely based on what I have read  here.

I do know most of the TD's at DTD though.

Wow  !!!!!

Terrible terrible ruling. I'd be calling over extra floors until Rob came himself of I had to.

I often call with 1 chip ie 1k chip of its a 6k bet and I probably got the best hand. What a terrible ruling.

Hero did absolutely nothi wrong (except a bad river sizing vs villains perceived range ;);))  there's no way he is at fault and think he's been absolutely robbed in this pot by the TD. If its 10k starting then that is a huge difference. Vinoh is clearly a very. NIce guy and wouldn't want to cause any trouble but no way should he have let this incompetent ruling stand.

Sigh, again the language is just not helpful is it?

Doing the debate no favours.

the other player. Young, inexperienced, not known to Vinodh, not a DTD reg. I have just asked him

if we're moving on to likely hands, you know there is no way hero is getting paid 6k from villain.  

Out of interest Pads, do you throw in 1 chip and make a signal to the dealer?

I know when I do this, I nod and mouth "call" or say call or whatever. This may sound trivial, but it's imperative wether the TD has any judgement in this matter.

If villain was to do as I would do above, and say call while throwing in the chips, I think we're all agreed that its black and white. However, as Tom stated earlier, the TD said that the villain hadnt said call, just placed 2 chips over the line.

No matter what anyone says about the colour of the chips, the mistake villain has supposedly made is very easy to make. I have seen as many bets at DTD as most, and have made the mistake myself from both sides of the table time and time again.

I'm not interjecting any rulings here, nor my opinion, just giving some balance.

Helpful for what? I'm nt going to pussyfoot around.

I don't even care it's dtd it could be anyway. Dtd do good things and I've used sufficient language to praise them were needs be. This is an amazingly bad ruling from any cardroom manger anywhere in the world. I wouldn't expect this at the local pub from a barman go has never played the game.

As far as the guy being youg and inexpeienced, well that's a shame but he will learn I guess.


Irrelevant but I heard that inexperienced guys like 3 pair.

You weren't there and just can't be so sure. Sometimes its not black and white. Of all the places in the world to use the word incompetent about, to do so towards a DTD TD is just ott, imo

If everything op said is correct then it's incompetent. IMO.

If he was saying things wrong then obviously I retract my statement.

In responding vs the op question not the general standard of dtd tds.

@ Jk, the op says the guy said call.

"However, as Tom stated earlier, the TD said that the villain hadnt said call, just placed 2 chips over the line. "



In my opinion, there are far too many definitive statements on this thread, about something that seems far mroe subjective than many imply

@ Vinny


Completely agree with Tighty here, which is why I haven't given an opinion, which is unusual for me on these ruling threads XD

Back @ Jk, vinodh was at the table and said the guy said call. We could go on all night  :)

Whichever is correct, the TD made the ruling based on villain not stating Call.

I understand where you're coming from though.

These days in all walks of life nobody seems to want to take responsibility for their own mistakes. Villain might have made a genuine mistake but he should absorb the consequences of his mistake. It seems in this example hero is being asked to absorb the loss of more chips than villain because villain made a mistake. Calling the TD at all is kinda embarrassing and villain should just flick in the total bet whilst muttering to himself.

Reading the rules @ DTD

I. 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 floor person's decision is final.

I think the TD got it 100% right. I don't really think a 6K bet would of been called.

Matey got a 1 round penalty for not paying attention. So Vin got 1500 Chips off the guy. IF the guy thought 6000 Was the call he would of passed.

Some may not think FAIR but I do think best Interest for the game.     

Make your bets clear and pay attention. We all can learn.

Regards

M

Also, if the TD thought the guy did nothing wrong, why did he get a penalty?

If hero bets 1500 and villain puts 6k in what's the rule

The basic position is it would be a raise (single chip rule), but that isn't the only possible decision.

The TD has ruled that he never verbally said " call"

If had ruled that he said "call" then the 6k is due. Also OP should not of opened his hand.

Nice read tho.

So we can now throw in a few chips silently in the hope hero turns his hand

Seems like a solid rule foundation for future consistency! What if hero insta mucks?

Sounds like a really bad ruling, whether OP said call or not.

So many other circumstance where villains can pick up or 'see' wrong chips yet would have to pay the price, some of which are outlined in this thread. Fraid he has to pay 6k and learn to double check the call amount in future if he's got dodgy eyes or can't clearly see and hasn't heard the dealer or the dealer hasn't stated the amount.

At which point should a bettor open their hand then?  When all the chips are in and they then double check that its called and the other player has understood the correct betsize?  Last aggressor has to show 1st, as soon as he is called he should be insta opening it or mucking.  Fucking about and not instantly doing 1 or the other is 1 of several small delays that unnecessarily slow down the game

Wow, I guess I have opened a very lengthy debate!! Please note my intention never was to accuse TD/the other player. I have never seen the player before so I cannot comment whether this was angle shooting or not.
 Just wanted to clarify whats the ruling. I know both the TD and the dealer did the best they could. Even though the TD thought this is a fair ruling, since I was at the wrong end of the stick, I was a bit surprised by it- If the bettor doesn't  declare his bet but puts his overbet, then if the caller doesn't ask how much the bet was / nor said Call and just puts some chips in which is 1/4th of the overbet, bettor insta turns over his hand "thinking" he has been called.
Isn't putting any two / more chips constitute CALL???
 

I really think Dtd need to comment on this thread. I'm obviously with Bobba & Jaffa (sounds like a kids double act), that the ruling seems like it can never be right and I am personally of the opinion it is open to angling.

The fairness rules are there to allow discretion, but this ruling clearly favours the person making the error, and is punitive to the aggressor. This, IMO can never be fair. A 1 round penalty is neither here nor there.

Would really like to know the facts on which the rule was based and the rule which was applied to make the decision

Food or valet (or both)?

They have a new dealer who liiks exactly like Jenny Agutter in Logan's Run....



(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9dcc54GHSd7OhcIB1Z58u9lX6iqgXjoMBfrfxW-ScPCjtNhHq)

These situations are different imo.  But I can understand where sometimes the lines get blurred.  I have been in situations early in tournies where people say call when they intend to limp not realising there has been a raise.  I have seen them get their chips back.  Maybe under this ruling you talked about.

But I have seen loads of instances, usually later in the tourney where the decision is made that the player can fold and leave the chips in that he has put across the line.

Admittedly these are usually before the final round of betting.

I think some people need to remember that this ruling was made in a £50 tourney which has been held specifically to encourage as many grass-roots players as possible to play in the event, and that a little more leeway might be allowed for some rulings especially when dealing with players who might be perceived by a TD as being relatively inexperienced.

I also think that the ruling might well have been different had it happened in a £1K Monte Carlo type tourney where players are expected to be a lot more sophisticated when playing at that level.

I apologise for my language.  When I posted it was based on the OP being correct.  If the TD ruled the villain didnt say call I can maybe understand the decision but I wouldnt agree with it.

Completely disagree this one Karibiner,I consider myself as a grass root player/rec player,I have never bought in directly into any tournament so far, only through satellites, Also I have never played anywhere outside of DTD till date and I love the club to bits...
whether this a 50 tourney/500 tourney, rules are rules I guess and it shouldn't be any different.

The rules aren't different, but maybe the way they are implemented is different.

This is an interesting situation, as my first thought was it HAS to be a call for 6k. Them's the rules. But it's also good to see common sense being applied as well - if it's applied correctly.

It does seem that there are times when common sense isn't applied, for example when someone goes to bet and accidentally knocks a chip in that lands first and then the player is made to bet that amount (or call if there's a bet before, etc.).  We don't want people to be angle-shooting with string bets, but 99.9% of the time it's a mistake rather than an angle, and if common sense is used in these situations then the dealer could tell the player to take the chips back and give him his options (again, only if there's no chance of an angle being played).

The rules are there to make the game run as it should, not the other way round.

I understand it's a good thing to encourage grass roots players. That said the consequences of making a mistake aren't really that terrible in the grand scheme of things. You lose a few chips and you learn your lesson. What if a new player calls thinking he has a flush but due to the lighting, misreading the board or whatever they don't have a flush? Do we give chips back in order to be lenient? I think the best approach is for new players to understand straight away that paying attention in poker is kinda important. If players can keep calling for a ruling because they meant to do a, b, or c rather than what they actually did there would be chaos.

villain did what he meant to do - call 1500

So many drama queens in this thread -- it was a considered ruling in particular circumstances, there will be no rampant angle-shooting or chaos as a result.  The sky hasn't fallen and the children will be safe.

as you said that my dish just landed on the oap next door but missed the kids phew

I lost some brutal pots when I was learning the game due to my mistakes! Pretty quick way to learn thou.

I totally disagree with "friendly" rulings for newbies

Ruling has to be wrong/bad, based on OP's info.

Also, the next time I see someone write "would of" ITT I think I'm going to crack!

Agreed james, why people just can't learn that it's would off ffs. It's not hard!

Simon Trumper will be posting on this thread this afternoon...his view of the ruling, thoughts on the issues involved etc

(lets hope he does now I have trailed it!)

A DTD td got a ruling wrong!!  I feel dizzy, I'm going to lie down.

 ;nana;

No one has really covered this point so far...why exactly did the Cutoff get a penalty? From the information provided the Hero bet 6k, Cutoff made a mistake and thought it was 1.5k and threw in that amount. I can't see why that would be grounds for any kind of penalty.

On the main issue (and based on the information about the situation provided so far) I would say the Cutoff should be made to call the full 6k. In the OP I read that the Cutoff said the word "Call" on the River but from later discussion it seems that he didn't actually say it and just threw in the 1.5k. I don't think that matters and it should still be a call of the full 6k.

The exact details of any ruling situation are important as too often things are missed out when stories are retold. Will be good to hear the TD's thoughts later on.

Yes. You can.

If he insta mucks then that is a different ruling. But it's the same situation. Hero should of been on the ball. This thread has polarised views only because the OP and TD differ on verbal action so the the ruling is wrong from OP view but correct from TD. As hero opened his hand he denied the opponent the choice of making up the 6k or passing and leaving the 1500 in?

Chucking a couple of chips in only means a call if the player is all in.

I would rather have 3 slow rollers on a live mtt than 1 tanking online pro having a go at a live event. Several small delays won't make up for serial tankers.

First of all can I say that I am not posting on behalf of DTD before you all try and shoot me down.

After reading the first 2 pages I was like WTF ...... never? Then after Toms post it became a little clearer.
I think only 1 person (Gouty) has touched on the proper reason in this instance.

Once the bet is called it is then a showdown and the dealer will then ask to see the hands to determine what wins.
In this instance the dealer hasn't asked and the cards were prematurely shown with no inference from the dealer to show.

Regarding the ?call? does the ?caller? believe that he has called or is trying to induce a player to expose prematurely. There are 2 questions here, is it now accepted action (as I Know It states) or is it a mistake or inducing by the caller.

I suspect it is was taken by the TD as a genuine mistake, and didn't feel that the player would have called the 6k (this is where you have to trust the TD).

Regarding the penalty, I don't know the history of the "caller" he may have had previous dubious or the TD may have given the penalty to ensure that if it happened next time it will be considered "accepted action" or to give a harsher punishment if it happened again and he thought it was a stroke.

I don't know the full circumstances and not privy to the TD's information as most of us aren't. But rulings are not made for the sake of it. As long as you believe the TD is fair, non bias and has the interest of the game at heart then you should be happy playing in a comp run by them. If you don't think the TD is up to the job or is incompetent then when you sit down, you accept what befalls you. But in my experience ALL TD's at DTD are fair, non bias and have the interest of the game at heart so would be happy playing there.

As an addendum if the caller had stated "call" he/she would be held to that action.

Why would you do this?

He's presumably misunderstood the bet, and it reads as if you have noticed this. If I'm going to accuse anyone of angle shooting in this scenario it's you because you acknowledge you noticed he only put in 1500 and by turning over you're trying to force him to commit to the 6000.

As for the ruling itself... it's an interesting one. And as long as sufficient justification is given I don't disagree with ruling either way as it's one of those that boils down to TDs discretion based on the specific scenario, characters involved, etc.

That said I see no reason why the caller was given a penalty. And the just receiving 1500 isn't right either as there was no bet made for 1500. Either return the 1500 and fold, or call 6000. He can't raise as he has made it clear his intention to call a bet.

It's quite common to put in less that the amount bet. It's not angle shooting. I made a comment about me doing it a few pages back and the dealer took it as a call.

If vinodh is correct, and the guy 100% said call, then it doesn't really matter how much he put in.

It's probably all best left til Simon comments anyway.

Why would someone turn their hand over when they bet and are called?  Are you serious???  Why wouldnt they turn their hand over?

Im finding it hard to imagine any scenario where a caller can throw in a chip and not have to pay the full amount.  If situations are reversed and the bettor misclicks and accidentally throws in a large denomination chip, if the other player notices this and calls, should the bettor get the chip back since he "meant" to bet less?  Has anyone ever seen someone be allowed to take back a bet after throwing the wrong chip in?

I barely ever call with the correct amount on river decisions like this. I usually just chuck a random chip in, and it always goes as a call whereby my opponent should show me their cards.

Dik9

This is a genuine question. Why have they "reached showdown". Nothing has occurred for that to be the case

Edit: I have more questions

1. Is the amount of the bet relevant? If so why? ie, if hero hasn't overbet pot and instead bet 2k (lets call it a "normal sized bet", and villain throws in 1.k, would the ruling be different.  The point I am getting to here is that hero may have skillfully read his opponents hand perfectly, knowingly overbet pot and is being punished for it.

2. Should the TD ever check Villains hand to make his decision? If not then why is he checking hero bet size either?

2. What would the ruling be if the same thing happened with different players at the same table 10 minutes later.

3. What would the ruling have been if the player just flicked it 1 smallest denomination chip?

This is the kind of sh1t that really annoys me.  Why do you do that?  Do you throw a random amount at the supermarket checkout person and wait till she asks for the rest?  You know what the bet is, so just put in an amount that covers it or say call.

It seems to have been accepted as a convention in the last 3 or 4 years, from my observations. I'm not sure it is enshrined in the Rule Books though.

Personally, I do everything I can to avoid potential situations like this. The right or wrong is irrelevant. I just think it makes sense to avoid potential conflict.

The rights or wrongs in this thread dont really matter to me in the greater scheme of things. But it could not have happened to me, ever, as before opening my hand, I'd seek clarification of the "call", from the player &/or Dealer, even though some cynics may say I am effectively giving away my hand strength. 

OK, I'm an old fart, I just sit there enjoying myself, but I don't like this sort of potential conflict at the poker table, so I do my best to avoid it by ensuring these things cant generally happen to me. The PLAYERS are the cause of most of these misunderstandings, & the TD ends up getting the blame. It is all very well standing on our supposed rights, but surely we want the game to run smoothly, dont we?

Not sure the TD is getting the blame here. I think Dik9 made his point very well. But I think people would like to hear the reasoning behind the ruling.

That being said, I am of the general opinion that there is too much protection of people making mistakes.

Well, DTD & the TD have been described as "incompetent" over this matter by more than one poster. They were not present when it went off, of course, so cannot possibly know the precise circumstances. 

They are not incompetenent. They may have made a mistake, of course. That does not make them incompetent, it makes them human - just like the players.

We are amateur poker players, the TD's are professionals, so I'm not sure we are well-placed to suggest they are incompetenent. They may well have made a mistake here, of course. That is a quite different thing.

We can so easily point the finger at others, but try wearing those shoes. Being a TD these days must be a proper nightmare. 

I do the same. Speeds the game up plus I don't ever call expecting to be giving the amount up so why put the correct amount in?

Yes, many do nowadays, but how much more time would it take to put the correct amount in George? Half a second?

Didn't you make a mistake in Vegas 2012 and get a time penalty (possibly even for exposing early?)  ;whistle;

I think the exposing early was in the Rio's corridors in his undies.

It's far easier to conclude that the TD made what he considered to be the best decision on the facts as presented, that he did so entirely reasonably but that you disagree with the outcome than it is to label the decision-maker an imbecile.

But then we all know what the referee is. He must be. He was two metres away and I could see from fifty feet away that it was a foul. Not fit to referee. And as for that striker...

internet poker so much easier

click call and its call no debate

if I was villain I would put the 6k in my mistake
if I was hero I like to think I would wait until action confirmed
although I have made lots of mistakes playing live acting out of turn mostly
as played I would accept I made a mistake by exposing cards  before the 6k was in or action is confirmed and accept ruling
from reading thread do not think anyone is angle shooting so if I was involved would be happy with TD decision  either way

the only people who don't make mistakes are people who don't do any thing

Why don't you just clearly say "call" if speed is paramount?

Frankly, I think that deliberately putting in the lower amount every time is an angle, because there is a chance that the dealer/opponent won't notice once in a while.

Last time I played in the Venetian deepstacks (couple of years ago) the dealers were very insistent that verbal allins and calls of allins were accompanied by a substantial amount of chips moved across the line to avoid any doubt.

It does only take half a second more so I don't see the big deal of throwing in 2 chips seperately to cover a call. In this case throw in a 1k and you have officially called, half a second later your throwing in the 5k chip and by this time I'd be expecting to see the good or bad news already. Less time is spent on this than people asking if they have been called when chips have been thrown in and waiting for the dealer to ask them to expose their hand

I make LOTS of mistakes. But I try to avoid them.

The Time Penalty I got at Caesars Palace last year was for "discussing my hand" with the other guy in the hand. I said (jokingly) "you've got none of that", & that was sufficient to get me a one orbit penalty. The opponent was......Greek Jack, & we were just bantering, as you do when you meet a pal from home over there in Vegas. I accepted the penalty with good grace, & moved on. The TD was not incompetenent, though I do think he was wrong.   

And THAT is my point, we ought to be able to debate these things without resorting to such language. None of us saw what happened, so it is a little unfortunate & presumptious to label the TD, & DTD, in such terms.

DTD are far from perfect, ditto their TD's, but they ain't that bad, & I've rarely seen better anywhere in Europe. 

Most rooms in Vegas insisted on that this year.

I agree. If people disagree with something, why can't they "criticise the action, rather than the person"? 

If I make a mistake in my job (I know, hard to believe right?), I don't expect my boss/client to call me an idiot/ibecile/incompetent, I'd expect them to criticise my action - and hopefully give me the opportunity to explain myself and 'make-good' if necessary.

If I receive a service from someone and I think/know they've made a mistake, I don't start calling them names.  For example, a waiter brings the wrong meal to my table.  Do I call them an imbecile and an idiot, or do I simply point out that a mistake has been made and let them rectify it?  If someone who is known for being competent (e.g. the TDs at DTD) makes what I think is a mistake with a ruling, I'm not going to let rip at them with disparaging comments.  Instead, I'd question their decision and discuss it as adults.

Many in this thread have done exactly that, but some think the only way to be critical of something is to launch into personal insults. Wonder if this is a 'keyboard warrior' thing, or if they're as lacking in social skills in 'real-life' as well.

I usually do it when I'm pretty sure I'm winning so I'm getting shipped the pot anyway. Like George said it speeds the game up generally, and doesn't exactly slow it down if I have to then put the correct amount in. If it annoys you, then tough titties; I won't be stopping doing it.

It wont work though James, because he won't expose his hand until he has clarified the call is as intended.

Like JK mentioned, you just have to add a little nod to the dealer :)

Hi All

I have spoken to the TD who made this ruling.

Often there are situations that invoke rule 1.1 which means a decision can be made in the interests of fairness and integrity regardless off the technical rule and in this case it was decided the caller had made a genuine error but should get a penalty for it.

Our TD's run the biggest fields week in week out so make 100's of decisions a year, occasionally they like anyone can make a misjudgement.

No ruling should be made on intention however it is a players responsibility to know the size of the bet they are calling, once the 1500 had gone over the line this represents a call and should be completed to 6000.

I am proud to say considering the number of rulings we handle this is a rare occurrence.

Cheers


ACES

Yup, 100% agree with that.

The Golden Rule I have in such situations is ALWAYS to make eye-contact with the Dealer, most especially in all-in spots. Once I get that, & the nod back, I'm happy to do whatever. On balance, I honestly don't think that, or I, slow the game down one iota. I can think of many un-necessary things that do though.....

If I have ANY action to make that could possibly be misconstrued, then I always wait until the Dealer is paying attention & he catches my eye. It just makes sense. It is like avoiding accidents in industry. They are costly, & dangerous. Time & money is saved over time if we make a little effort to avoid them. 

One problem that affects many is when Online grinders play live. Online & Live are completely different things. In one case, we have computer software "dealing", it NEVER makes mistakes. And there are NEVER "mistakes" Online, as the Software does not permit it.

When we play Live, not so much. The players, the dealers, the TD's, all of us, CAN make mistakes, & so we do.

A little tolerance to this fact of life & understanding of it would help. Live is not Online.

Also there's no way I'm betting a river without the nuts.

I have always insisted on it.

No surprise there, Craig, because it saves those difficult situations arising. Players can't just make up their own rules as they go along.

I read this thread and took part in the discussion. From my perspective it was a normal general discussion about a ruling and I didn't get the sensation that people were slating DTD or calling them incompetent in the slightest. I do remember somebody saying everybody in the thread were drama queens which had me reaching for my handbag but nothing more than that. In any sport/game if the ref makes a controversial decision they will get some stick. I've been watching the Ashes and the umpires have been slated for the odd decision but that is just normal everyday life. There wasn't any actual abuse itt so I wonder if it's necessary to be so defensive about such things? If everybody has a discussion about a controversial decision and one or two say the word imcompetent then that is just normality, I mean perfection is a concept that's hard to achieve in real life and we all know that so I don't get the fuss.