Title: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Vinodh on September 19, 2014, 09:26:35 AM Here we go again!
DTD- GPS main event satellite. Rebuy /add on period over. Blinds 800/1600. 3 early postions limps,HJ raises to 6500, I am OTB reraised to 16k. SB,BB,first two limpers fold, 3rd limper shoves for 31k. I am cotemplating a call for about minute and half. I dont say anything, put the calling chips and turns over my cards. Meanwhile, the shover was having his dinner, didnt see my action ( he thought I had folded and showed my cards) and mucked his cards straight away. What should be the ruling? Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: redsimon on September 19, 2014, 09:32:45 AM Loses his chips if his cards can't be easily retrieved?
Seem to remember a player once shoved allin from seat 1 at DTD a few years ago in the Deepstack and dealer mucked his unprotected cards and his chips still went in? Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Vinodh on September 19, 2014, 09:54:16 AM Cards were easily retrievable
Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Doobs on September 19, 2014, 10:01:38 AM Cards were easily retrievable Cards speak then? Why would it be anything other than this. We have reached the river, no other action is possible, both players 2 cards are obvious. Why didn't you say anything? Seems easy enough to say call as you put the chips in. Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Marky147 on September 19, 2014, 10:02:57 AM I'd go with, cards are retrieved and hand plays out normally.
Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Tal on September 19, 2014, 10:05:37 AM Cards were easily retrievable Cards speak then? Why would it be anything other than this. We have reached the river, no other action is possible, both players 2 cards are obvious. Why didn't you say anything? Seems easy enough to say call as you put the chips in. All of this. If you saw the guy wasn't concentrating, your deliberate choice not to say anything could be misinterpreted. Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: KarmaDope on September 19, 2014, 10:32:48 AM If cards are retrievable then they speak. You've called the all in.
Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Rexas on September 19, 2014, 11:56:01 AM @ redsimon, we haven't reached a river, this is preflop.
Personally, I think the correct "technical" ruling here is probably that once the cards are in the muck, the hand is dead. You can't reach into the muck and retrieve your cards once you've folded them in any other scenario, once they're in there they're dead. However, DTD does seem to emphasize making rulings in the interest of the fairness of the game, which is definitely a good thing in my opinion. In this case, it was clear what the player wanted to do, and it was clear he had made an honest mistake, and the mistake was easily rectifiable. Fwiw, I would allow the all in player to retrieve his cards and give him a pretty stern warning about paying attention to hands he's heavily involved in. Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: redsimon on September 19, 2014, 11:58:17 AM @ redsimon, we haven't reached a river, this is preflop. Personally, I think the correct "technical" ruling here is probably that once the cards are in the muck, the hand is dead. You can't reach into the muck and retrieve your cards once you've folded them in any other scenario, once they're in there they're dead. However, DTD does seem to emphasize making rulings in the interest of the fairness of the game, which is definitely a good thing in my opinion. In this case, it was clear what the player wanted to do, and it was clear he had made an honest mistake, and the mistake was easily rectifiable. Fwiw, I would allow the all in player to retrieve his cards and give him a pretty stern warning about paying attention to hands he's heavily involved in. Never said anything about a river mate? Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Doobs on September 19, 2014, 12:15:12 PM @ redsimon, we haven't reached a river, this is preflop. Personally, I think the correct "technical" ruling here is probably that once the cards are in the muck, the hand is dead. You can't reach into the muck and retrieve your cards once you've folded them in any other scenario, once they're in there they're dead. However, DTD does seem to emphasize making rulings in the interest of the fairness of the game, which is definitely a good thing in my opinion. In this case, it was clear what the player wanted to do, and it was clear he had made an honest mistake, and the mistake was easily rectifiable. Fwiw, I would allow the all in player to retrieve his cards and give him a pretty stern warning about paying attention to hands he's heavily involved in. Never said anything about a river mate? My fault I think, misread of the hand. Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Rexas on September 19, 2014, 12:50:25 PM @ redsimon, we haven't reached a river, this is preflop. Personally, I think the correct "technical" ruling here is probably that once the cards are in the muck, the hand is dead. You can't reach into the muck and retrieve your cards once you've folded them in any other scenario, once they're in there they're dead. However, DTD does seem to emphasize making rulings in the interest of the fairness of the game, which is definitely a good thing in my opinion. In this case, it was clear what the player wanted to do, and it was clear he had made an honest mistake, and the mistake was easily rectifiable. Fwiw, I would allow the all in player to retrieve his cards and give him a pretty stern warning about paying attention to hands he's heavily involved in. Never said anything about a river mate? Sorry pal, meant to be for Doobs! Misread who wrote the comment :) Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: verndog158 on September 19, 2014, 01:00:50 PM If the cards were easily retrievable, as suggested, it probably means they weren't in the muck. If so then I agree with rexarse and co, that common sense means they are retrieved and hand played out
Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: doubleup on September 19, 2014, 01:01:17 PM Does OP really need to think for 1.5 mins when hes getting about 4-1 pre-flop? (even if it is a satellite)
Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: david3103 on September 19, 2014, 01:28:28 PM Does OP really need to think for 1.5 mins when hes getting about 4-1 pre-flop? (even if it is a satellite) it's a satellite, odds mean less than survival Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: doubleup on September 19, 2014, 01:32:44 PM Does OP really need to think for 1.5 mins when hes getting about 4-1 pre-flop? (even if it is a satellite) it's a satellite, odds mean less than survival That's why I said the bold bit Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Rexas on September 19, 2014, 02:43:42 PM If the cards were easily retrievable, as suggested, it probably means they weren't in the muck. If so then I agree with rexarse and co, that common sense means they are retrieved and hand played out I was at the table when this happened, the cards were absolutely in the muck. The guy who was all in was sat in seat 9 and placed them clearly on top of the pile of cards that constitutes "the muck". They were only easily retrievable because he put them on top, not inside. Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: smurf on September 19, 2014, 04:36:57 PM come on...can't wait any longer...what ruling was given :dontask:
Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: StuartHopkin on September 19, 2014, 04:45:44 PM If the cards were easily retrievable, as suggested, it probably means they weren't in the muck. If so then I agree with rexarse and co, that common sense means they are retrieved and hand played out I was at the table when this happened, the cards were absolutely in the muck. The guy who was all in was sat in seat 9 and placed them clearly on top of the pile of cards that constitutes "the muck". They were only easily retrievable because he put them on top, not inside. But you could identify them easily, as could he? Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Rexas on September 19, 2014, 10:05:50 PM If the cards were easily retrievable, as suggested, it probably means they weren't in the muck. If so then I agree with rexarse and co, that common sense means they are retrieved and hand played out I was at the table when this happened, the cards were absolutely in the muck. The guy who was all in was sat in seat 9 and placed them clearly on top of the pile of cards that constitutes "the muck". They were only easily retrievable because he put them on top, not inside. But you could identify them easily, as could he? Yes, I could be absolutely certain of which two cards he had held. Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: redsimon on September 20, 2014, 08:20:13 AM If the cards were easily retrievable, as suggested, it probably means they weren't in the muck. If so then I agree with rexarse and co, that common sense means they are retrieved and hand played out I was at the table when this happened, the cards were absolutely in the muck. The guy who was all in was sat in seat 9 and placed them clearly on top of the pile of cards that constitutes "the muck". They were only easily retrievable because he put them on top, not inside. But you could identify them easily, as could he? Yes, I could be absolutely certain of which two cards he had held. Could the Dealer? If so I'd say his hand is retrieved and placed face up and the board dealt out. Whether he gets to eat his pudding depends then on the cards not some f==k up Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: biggy333x on September 20, 2014, 08:37:55 AM If the guys a local:
cards speak, retrieve then run the board. If the guys not a local/ is a southerner/ doesn't tip/ wanker to dealers or just in general a bit of a knob: cards are dead cos they been mucked? Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: TightEnd on September 20, 2014, 09:06:44 AM If the guys a local: cards speak, retrieve then run the board. If the guys not a local/ is a southerner/ doesn't tip/ wanker to dealers or just in general a bit of a knob: cards are dead cos they been mucked? Absolutely certain that a DTD TD is not varying his or her ruling depending on whether the player is a local or not! Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: kinboshi on September 20, 2014, 09:07:18 AM What was he eating?
Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: theprawnidentity on September 20, 2014, 09:21:31 AM What was he eating? I'm pleased someone's finally started asking the right questions. Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Vinodh on September 20, 2014, 10:12:43 AM come on...can't wait any longer...what ruling was given :dontask: Ruling was to retrieve the mucked cards and play them face up as All in and a call Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: redsimon on September 20, 2014, 10:40:46 AM Did he order a pudding after?
Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Cf on September 20, 2014, 11:21:08 AM The muck is not some mystical location that magically kills anything that might come into contact with it never ever to be seen again.
Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: kinboshi on September 20, 2014, 11:48:13 AM The muck is not some mystical location that magically kills anything that might come into contact with it never ever to be seen again. You're right, the food's not that bad. Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: StuartHopkin on September 20, 2014, 12:14:46 PM The muck is not some mystical location that magically kills anything that might come into contact with it never ever to be seen again. You're right, the food's not that bad. ;applause; Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Rexas on September 20, 2014, 12:54:03 PM The muck is not some mystical location that magically kills anything that might come into contact with it never ever to be seen again. You're right, the food's not that bad. I feel like I'm playing into your hands when I call this statement :p Title: Re: Another Ruling Debate Post by: Rexas on September 20, 2014, 12:54:54 PM If the cards were easily retrievable, as suggested, it probably means they weren't in the muck. If so then I agree with rexarse and co, that common sense means they are retrieved and hand played out I was at the table when this happened, the cards were absolutely in the muck. The guy who was all in was sat in seat 9 and placed them clearly on top of the pile of cards that constitutes "the muck". They were only easily retrievable because he put them on top, not inside. But you could identify them easily, as could he? Yes, I could be absolutely certain of which two cards he had held. Could the Dealer? If so I'd say his hand is retrieved and placed face up and the board dealt out. Whether he gets to eat his pudding depends then on the cards not some f==k up I can't be sure if the dealer saw where the cards were placed, but they were directly on top of the muck and I'd say chances are that she did. |