blonde poker forum

DTD is a poker club that I respect alot and I think it is the best run cardroom I've ever visited, but this ruling has changed my view entirely.

This is very ranty because I have just got back from the £300 DS which the hand was played in.

at 50/100 there are 2 limpers and one guy min raised to 200, to which I call from the SB as does everyone else.

The flop falls 24Q two clubs. I have 22 and decide to lead as I see no reason to slow play. As I am looking down at my chips to decide what amount to bet, the BB did not know I had cards so proceeded to check and everyone else follows until the original raiser bets 400, by which time I have bet my 500. The dealer is unsure what to do as I explained I haven't acted yet. Floor is called and my hand is declared dead because 3 people have acted after me. DEAD??!!!

This is the most insane ruling I have ever heard, I was told it is my responsibility to alert people when they act after me, but I wasn't even looking up at the time.

After mentioning the ruling to my friends at the break they said they have witnessed this ruling enforced before, surely this isn't correct?

What happens if every player wants to see a cheap turn or river, everyone slams the table so the person who is about to bet runs the risk of having his hand dead??

Utterly ridiculous, admittedly it hurt so much more when I see that I would have got the much needed double up that I needed which is what brings on such a rant.

Who made the ruling?

Don't understand why you're inaction hasn't counted as a check? Not sure I understand what's happened. If it was decided that you didn't make an action to start with, why don't you have the option to act when it comes round to you after the bet?

Have you omitted something from the sequence of events?

have seen this ruling before when e.g. a bets, c raises, d calls, e calls then it's noticed that b has still to act

rule is obv not designed though for the situation in the op where you should just be considered to have checked. abs ridic ruling

dead hand?

why cant you just act?

redic ruling indeed!

I haven't omitted anything.

People checked out of turn and then someone C bet, I then put my bet in (which I thought my mistake meant it would count as a call unless action changes)

I allowed the dealer to explain what happened and she knew the situation.

The person who made the ruling was a fair haired middle aged guy. A regular tournament director

i would have kicked up a huge fuss, why didnt you? get trumper over?

Just run this past another TD here, as a "what if?"....they gave exactly the same ruling

If someone mistakenly acts, before a first person has acted, and two people follow on from that mistaken action..then the first hand is dead.

redic

so dealer error and player is punished - sure seems real

I don't understand why anyone thought you didn't check and then either called or raised?

It's both totally real and in my experience a standard ruling in card-rooms I have visted

Yes, a dealer should be keeping the action in order, stopping the action if required.

The thinking behind the ruling is to stop a person gaining information by not acting. Granted in this instance that's not the intention.

yes but there is nothing to stop people to the left angle shooting by insta checking - inducing others to check - guys hand is dead if 3 people check - and he queries he still wants to act - this would be especially exploitable if separated by dealer (if 1st to act was seat 9 but seat 1 insta checks and makes seat 2 check assuming its his turn)

great rule

if the Dealer/TD determine there is collusion by checking/acting in this fashion the angle shooters will receive a penalty.

once?

dont think so

edit: sorry

I'm relaying the comments to a TD here and feeding back his responses Guy.

the point is the rule assumes the guy is angle shooting - when he isnt

ok the rule COULD stop angle shooting but it could induce it as well - just saying!

Still don't understand. When the play came back round to the hero, who said he hadn't acted and that the floor should be called?

Who said it wasn't a check under the gun?

that does seem like an incredibly unfair ruling.  if the guys acting out of turn checked very quickly with a quick tap of the table it's very easy to miss the fact that action has taken place whilst you're considering your own action until someone else makes a bet further round the table - I know it's happened to me before - in vegas I think - and the ruling was that because further action had taken place I was deemed to have checked, which feels like the right ruling to me.

I've been playing poker nearly 30 years and never seen this ruling. It can hardly be call standard.

I have often seen this situation, the standard ruling is that player A is deemed to have chaked and can now act on the bet.

When I put my bet in and then the dealer said "I thought you checked" (on the basis that the BB checked as did everyone else) so she called floor immediately.

what a sorry ass rule, he is deemed to have checked and can now call raise or fold, this bn a standard rule in casinos is b.s. imo.

Anyone who doesn't think this ruling is an absolute joke is clueless you can't punish op for not acting within a milisec of the flop being dealt,I've never heard anything so ridic in poker.You can't just assume someody is angleshooting this is a horrible ruling.

never seen such a stupid ruling in my life, to say it prevents ange shooting is pathetic, surely it open doors for angle shooters. op has the right to rant over this ruling

I thought someone had bet? So if you had checked you now have the option to fold, call or raise?

Still think I'm missing something, but I have had a few celebrating the grand final win by Wigan!

I don't really understand the 'preventing angle shooting' bit either tbh.  So the rule is to prevent people angle shooting by not acting?  How exactly? Surely if the dealer is paying attention then the only thing not acting gains you is the dealer reminding you it's your turn after a little while.

had the exact same thing happen to me two years ago in a weekday comp. I looked down to bet- before I knew two people had acted out of turn and my hand was also declared dead....

Surely those acting out of turn are the ones who aren't paying attention?

well we all know what to do when peeling a 3 bet pre in position in the first few levels then

Absolutely,action is rewound to sinned player who then has the option with fresh information

Comedy ruling and not right on any level

Somebody explain why all poker rules have not been standardised please,beggars belief

because, and this does not refer to DTD, there is too much self interest and ego in a lot of the organisations supplying Live Poker. This is certainly true in the UK. A lot of inertia and "we are the best" going on.

Try to progress standardisation and you come up against "What's in it for us?" all over the place

Totally untrue an the ruling is 100% wrong. Simaliar problem arrived in vic cardroom 3 weeks ago when palyer had raised to £150 wheres the player b in seat 1 had yet 2 act but seat 2 folded an seat 3 an 4 had followed suit with me waiting for player b to act. Player b wanted to reraise to £450 but was not allowed but hand was deemed  live an he could only call preflop but all his actions were live after. Its the dealers responsibilty but also due to poor dealing standards the player must also be alert to action happening an help dealers if nescessery by pointing out errors which are common!

What is untrue? It happens to be the ruling at DTD

anyway, I have asked Mr Trumper if he can take a look at all this.

He'll do a better job than me at talking it through

Try to progress standardisation and you come up against "What's in it for us?" all over the place

For a start,with one set of easy to follow standardised rules, you will attract new players who have learned the rules at home and can now come and play live without fear of localised joke rulings that will confuse them and put them off ever playing live poker again

But i get your point

I agree.

I have definitely played at Grosvenors and seen the rule, Charra.

I don't think, correct me if I am wrong, that two Grosvenors are guaranteed to have the same rules. Local club rules apply. Daft, but I believe that is the case.

lol @ anyone who thinks that grosvenors have anything close to standardised rules. they`re by far the worst for having random local rules in each cardroom

True ! i think u right there as the local players tend to influence the rules they want until somethng complicated happens wheres in the old days they would ring the vic up for the ruling! Its quite funny if the same ruling had been given that his hand was dead as the guy that wasnt allowed to reraise was livid as HOW CAN BETTING OUT OF TURN BE ALLOWED AN MUST STAND but not being allowed to reraise or even worse your hand being declared dead because of dealing or players incompetence be fair play?

yeah i remeber grosvenor had this for a while, if 3 actions where made after you or something you where punished for not keeping your head in the game as you would have been given info on peolpe flatting etc

tytyty

but its the interpretation of the rules that will still get challanged. and who's rules should we all follow? Grosvenor as they where the main legal poker provider until it became mainstream again, dtd because they are now the best in the uk or maybe bring them iun from over the pond?

what a gr8 point 

When you say best ! What do you mean? Small buy in toruneys or high buy in tourneys ? smalll stakes cash games or high stakes cash games? For Decor or Cardroom presenation ? Food or standard of waitress service ? When you say the best the best for what exactly as the best for you may not be the same for others as every club i have been to have good points an bad points its just about your personal preference!  Also you cant go far wrong if you just follow the US rules as its there game we are playing !

totally agree, would once and for all put an end to these repetative "ruling" arguements.......the money that goes thru doors in live poker in the uk must be huge, its about time the players put their foot down and demanded "set" rules....

IMHO
dealers fault I'm fed up with dealers making mistakes
and the players being held responcable for dealers mistakes
we pay for dealers cash/tourney

lots of dealers learn the game and take more notice

just a thought if you were playing blackjack
the dealer always make sure whether you stand or take a card
why not in poker
dealers fault

This is not dealer's fault.

If you want to lead your set then either a) say something like 'I bet' or b) take notice of people checking around you and say 'hold on' or something.

Andrew you're posts are usually well informed but to say you have to say "bet" if you wanna lead is ridic.

quality of dealers at dtd are usually top notch but not compared to dealers I encountered in Vegas. They didn;t miss a trick

youre comparing apples and pears george. Vegas attracts smart dealers who mostly play the game, dtd attracts mostly local semi attractive skanks from the estate that dont have a brain, obv there gonna miss loads of stuff, whose gonna want to deal in front of leering blokes and listen to "four king ten" haha everynight for
close to min wage.

Pretty com, Player 2 checks out of turn causing player 3 to check out of turn and player 4 to bet out of turn, the dealer has failed to keep up with the correct action yet player 1, the only player to not have done anything wrong, is penalised.

I think the dealer really needs to take the blame here, they should be on top of the action and stop players from checking out of turn to allow player 1 his right to act.

Ridic ruling.

 For what it is worth, I have always been aggravated by how ludicrous some players are with checking, The smallest twinge of a finger, or the fractional inclination of their head. Which is fine when I spot it.

I have been in situations where everyone has insta checked and I am still looking at the first to act because I haven't caught their check.

Then you have the times where you take those actions as a check and they throw a bet in 30 seconds later and say they have not checked yet.

Perhaps it doesn't apply to this scenario, but I've been doing my job long enough to know that this behaviour is a cause for a lot of these problems.

Say "check" or make a deliberate hand motion. I suspect your table image will endure.

I don't really think apportioning blame is that relevant here, but how can player 1 stop subsequent actions when he is looking at his chips and the actions behind are silent.

This rule and punishment too punitive and makes no sense. The rule is formed on the assumption that player 1 is seeking an edge.

This is far more open to an angle shoot because the rule exists. For player 1 to benefit the dealer must make an error, for others to use it as an angle all they need to do is act and induce action from behind, which when that action is a check can happen fairly quickly!

Wow Trigg, there must be better ways of making a point than that.

RR's cover this and state that if 3 or more people act after you before you've made your action then you may lose the right to act. What it doesn't cover however is the two different scenarios you may be facing:

Facing a bet - If OP was facing a bet then I agree with DTDs ruling. We can't assume that the player would have called the bet. And we certainly can't now give him the option to call or fold due to the extra info he's had from 3 people acting behind. The hand has to be dead here.

Not facing a bet - This is a little bit different. We can assume they'll have just checked. It's a free action. Yes, they may have wanted to bet, but they've lost that right. But unlike the other case there's no advantage to be gained here. They've not received any extra info that they wouldn't have done from just checking themselves.

It's not often I disagree with DTD but I do here. I think they understand the reasoning for the rule but I think they've misapplied it.

But also to OP: keep your eye on the table and don't allow three people to act out of turn after you. Protect your own interests and tell them to stop.

If the OP had claimed he'd checked originally, he'd have all his options open to him?

no. he's put 500 in before realising what's going on so it's a call

Yes seems like they have misinrepreted this and not considered that the loss of the right to act makes no difference when not facing a bet.. 

I mean before the 500 bet is made.

My 10 cents:

It's a bad rule, not a bad ruling.

What a rude post. So insulting to decent people who are trying to earn a living.

You kidding? Wish I was semi attractive.

you may be right but do we know what the rule is? if it's similar to what cf posted i.e. you may lose the right to act or your hand may be declared dead then the rule is probs fine while the ruling is bad

I've heard of this rule pre flop when people fold out of turn but after the flop seems ridiculous.

I think it's a mistake by the TD who was enforcing the pre flop rule. If it's not a mistake it's a rule that should be looked at and changed imo.

What if you tell them to stop and they don't? If the rule is the player must stop the action the player should be allowed to stop it any way he can. If he sees people checking behind can he stand up and scream like a girl, or turn the table over, or throw his glass at the all important third player? Either way he would stop the action. If the players behind are not paying attention then what measures can you go to to wake them up? I know glassing someone is extreme but people would pay more attention afterwards. What is the rule if you say stop but they don't? If the dealer wasn't staring at his own feet he could be of some help here I think.

I'm astonished by this ruling.  Just relieved that it wasn't me on the end of it in a £300 comp as I'd be absolutely fuming.

I can usually see the logic behind most rulings, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, but not in this case.  Ultimately, the dealer should be controlling the game and following the action and to punish a player for a dealer error (albeit one which crops up regularly regardless of how good the dealers are) seems totally unfair to me.

I've not played poker as much as some who have commented, but I've never seen this ruling enforced in any game I've played.

Seems to be an 'easy out' type of ruling for a TD, which avoids them having to make any decisions based on the specifics of the hand in question (i.e. innocent errors, angle shoots, etc)

I agree with Mantis's point too. How do you stop people from acting out of turn? And how the fuck can you when you're looking at your stack to bet.

One point everyone has missed here that if we do scream and shout we could well be giving our hand strength away "WHOA- NO ONE ACT OUT OF TURN- I'VE FLOPPED BOTTOM SET AND DONT WANT MY HAND DECLARED DEAD"

Guy's point is also valid. If I'm at a table with a "Friend- Poker friend!" then maybe we can give each other the nod to act out of turn super fast so an opponents hand is dead?

This is quite simply the worst ruling I've ever heard of. I mean WTF.

Possibly the most offensive post I've ever seen


Terrible ruling (ok red dog, terrible rule). Declaring a live hand dead should be the A-bomb of rulings, only to be used as a last resort or in extreme circumstances. This does not qualify as extreme circumstances. Cf makes a good point about the slightly different situation in which this ruling would be not so bad, but I still think even then the hand shouldn't be killed unless the player obviously knew what was happening and obviously waited in order to gain an advantage. What I think SHOULD happen is that the hand is live but the player can make no aggressive action, the standard way in which many penalties are structured so that savvy players can't use rulings to gain an advantage.

As an aside, if I'm in a hand and see the other player go to his chips before his turn, I wait for him to make his bet before saying anything. I never thought before now that this could be interpreted as underhanded, after all he's the one making a mistake, not me, why shouldn't he get some kind of information penalty? What are people's opinions on this, am I a dirty trickster?

Nope don't think you're a trickster at all. I hate people not concentrating and not following the action "What happened here?" people calling out of turn. PAY ATTENTION FFS!

I doubt we've ever had such a universal dislike for a rule/ruling. really hope someone from dtd reads through this thread and takes notice

wow i was in a bad mood.

You should probably get out more



This is a silly suggestion - how can a TD possibly make this judgement.  The standard rule quoted by CF is perfectly adequate and had it been applied correctly OP's hand wouldn't have been declared dead, (although only mr stupid of stupid avenue, stupid town would possibly give him any action without the nuts).



yup, your an angle shooter (sorry)

AndrewT gets it right, as per usual. It's a pretty standard rule, IMO.

It goes against the grain that someone wholly innocent should be punished for the errors of others, & I got pretty cross when it happened to me in a biggish (£750) Comp, & my hand was voided.

The point was made that if I were paying attention, the moment the first geezer, to my immediate left, folded out of turn, I should have given it the "whoa, hold up".

The OP is not an angle-shooter, & nor am I, but you can see WHY the Rule is in place. Knowing what I know now, I would have "stopped" the Action the moment the first player acted out of turn.

The ruling, imo, is correct, though the Rule may be wrong.

As is so often the case with these threads, if the players were to pay proper attention, it would not happen. It's too easy to blame others - usually the Dealer - for everything.

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

Which only seves to muddy the waters further, really.

Best to pay attention, then it can't happen, either the Ruling, or the argument which inevitably follows.

Tikay if you look at your stack to bet and two people tap the table how are you sposed to know they've checked??? Keep looking up from your stack and back at the players? Surely the player who is getting ready is being punished for others not paying attention?

tikay/all

a check is usually a silent action, and if a guy checks with his left hand your prob not going to see it whilst looking at your chips. The further away it gets you are not going to see it.

You cannot punish a person for getting ready with his action

and im not sure the dealer is blamelss here - why did she think he had checked?

If this rule sticks - i wont have a problem with getting rulings (against pre flop aggressors particularly) when this occurs, because it is a huge advantage and isnt considered angle shooting (obv the guy who didnt check but is awaiting to act  is the angle shooter)













*i obv wont do this but you see my point - no way the person who hasnt made an error should be punished in this spot, and it is very very expoitable

Take yer hoodie off, earphones out, & shades off. Things become much clearer then. ;)

I know that is tongue in cheek but you're not really answering the query. Were you wearing the above when it happened in the 750? As Guy as said- checking is a silent action and I thnk the ruling is exploitable- let's get people's hands killed by acting quickly out of turn

When you say "if this Rule sticks", it's been in place, to the best of my knowledge, for as long as I've been playing poker. It's my bad - & I was big enough to accept it - that for most of that time I never knew of it's existence.

How many poker players have read & familiarised themselves with the TDA Rules, or RRoP? I bet it's less than 10%!

big enough to accept that you get penailsed for not making mistakes

not sure thats a shrewd move tbf

this is the greatest rule ever

Regardless of attire, at some point a player has to take his eyes off the action to look at his cards.  How is he/she suppose to watch out for players tapping the table when doing this?

The only person at the table who should be following the action 100% of the time is the dealer and every player, to some extent, is reliant on this at some point during the hand.  If the dealer fails to control the action and prevent a domino effect of players acting out of turn then why should a player be punished for this, as is the case here?

Also, I struggle to see how this is a 'standard rule' when players such as The Camel, with significant live experience to count upon, have never seen it applied.  Judging by the replies on here, the exposure to this rule seems to be entirely dependent on which cardrooms people play most often.

Yes, it was a bit t-i-c, but, I'd never be that fashionable, or that dumb, George, because all that paraphenalia & nonsense does tend to detract from a clear mind & view of what's happening.

I never queried the domino action behind me because I was in ignorance of the Rules, it never crossed my mind that I had a responsibility to stop the action here. So I went & learned the Rules.

It was a big Tourney for me, £750 Entry, & I had Aces, which I was forced to muck pre-flop. When that happens, you can either learn one's lessons, & bone up on the Rules, or run round blaming the world & his wife.

Karma's wonderful, though, as I ended up TID. Well, chopping it, which was as near as I usually ever got......

Well like it or not, as I later learned, them's the Rules!

As I said earlier, it goes against the grain of nastural justice to be penalised for what most see as someone else's error, & it took some time before the penny dropped as to why the Rule exists. But the Rule has been in place for donkey's years.

tony, we're not talking about preflop or postflop facing a bet. you were at fault in your example, you should notice people throwing their cards away

we're talking about postflop with everyone having checked. the ruling in that situation is quite clearly complete and utter nonsense

Even tho I wear the gear- it's not often I miss the action- it's actually more of your old school players who probably don't know how to play properly who tend to act out of turn.

Well that's sort of irrelevant, Curtis.

The Rule DOES exist, & has always existed. The fact that it is not consistently applied is the real problem here. We can't argue about it - it is the Rule.

If we want it changed, we should lobby whoever to change it.

But we SHOULD familiarise ourselves with the Rules as written, & I bet 90% of poker players have never done so.

OK then, say I follow your advice and learn the rules.

I find a poker rule book that's one of the ones that doesn't say something along these lines (not that the above states anything about my hand being mucked, it just says I lose the right to act, which could mean no aggressive action).  I guess it's my fault now for reading the wrong book?  Perhaps there should be a rule book on which rule book we should all read first!

The fallacy of trying to learn rules in poker is that no two places uses the same version, and no-one knows which rules are in use anywhere until a particular issue crops up.  Another good example of this is the 'what's the minimum raise?' debates we've had on here previously.

At least it all generates good material for debate!   ;)

I'm kind of with you if we're talking about people folding out of turn pre flop - even out of the corner of your eye you should notice that happening.  but lets say in this situation, you have invested chips into the pot, you've just flopped a set, are first to act, and are having a think about how much to bet.  Let's say also that you're sat in seat 9.  Are you really saying that whilst you're considering your action (it's you to act after all, you shouldn't really have to concern yourself at all with anyone else at the table) you should also be totally alert to what is going on at the other end of the table?  that just doesn't seem realistic to me. 

As others have said, I've never seen a ruling like this personally.

Every "accepted" Poker Rule Book takes the same line on this issue, Curtis. And always has done, or at least in my time in the game.

Fair point.

A lot nicer though when you have active dealers who control the action, with one finger pointing at the player to act in turn, this kind of thing then a lot less likely to happen. The dealer also verbally echoes the players action, the player can get on with his thinking/counting without having to monitor the guy 3 to his left, in case he's missed a bunch of accidental action.

But there's the thing Claire - the fact that "others" have never seen such a Ruling does not necessarily make it incorrect.

Ignorance of Rules is no excuse.

And not liking a Rule is deffo no excuse! Kinboshi thinks most of the the Speed Limits are stupid, but that does not give him the right to break it.

PS - Just remembered, I owe you a PM reply, from Thursday or Friday, sorry.

If the Rule is wrong, players need to mobilise themselves properly to get it changed.

You note the vested interest in the OP - "if it had not had happened, I'd have got my much-needed double-up" is hardly a solid basis for moving forward, imo!

I think you're right, every accepted rule book does have a rule like that.

In particular the part at the end, "... may cause you the lose the right to act."

"may cause" not "will cause" - in other words it's a rule which is deliberately and correctly left open for the interpretation of the TD. If it gets that far, the TD should be applying common sense as to whether it's an angle shoot or just a player being caught out by other people's mistakes.

Yes, much nicer.

But that does not mean they are wholly to blame. Poker players, eventually, are going to have to accept the notion that there are some things in poker for which they must accept partial responsibility.

does 'losing your right to act' = 'your hand is dead' though?  I don't think anyone is suggesting that after the out of turn action has taken place and there's been a bet round the table that we should rewind back to let OP make his action.

Yup, I could not agree more.

Do you think common sense was applied in the OP's case?

Tikay, are you saying that poker players in a live setting in this situation should be closely watching that our opponents dont illegally act out of turn on top of everything else we would think about, so that we can retain our right to act?

The dealers are there to control the action, when situations like this occur its the dealer and the player who acted out of turns fault for not paying attention properly.  The original player cannot lose his right to act, its illogical, insane and against the spirit of the game.

It's impossible so to judge unless one witnessed the action.

Reading the OP, the OP seems to have seen all the action unfold, as he speaks very factually about exactly what happened behind him whilst he was still dwelling. What does that suggest to you?

As far as I can see he says that they checked, apart from the original raiser - I don't think you need to have been following the action to work out what took place while you were looking at your chips and working out your betsizing.

I'm saying two things really, & I'm quite possibly wrong in both.

1) That is what the Rules say.

2) It just gets my goat when everytime a ruling goes against a player, they make a song & dance about it, & blame the dealer. Rather like footballers accepting a penalty against them with good grace. ;). And yet I've stated that I believe less than 10% of poker players have boned up on TDA Rules, RRoP, or their Local Cardroom's Rules, & so far, although everyone disagreess with me on my general thrust, (perhaps correctly) nobody has queried that. Because, I believe, it's true.

Like Sofa, I'm always right. Sometimes.

PS - Very well done on Thursday. You looked nailed on to scoop the first prize, but Mr J seemed to run "quite hot"!!

Might be the rule in dtd but not the rule in the Vic which for many regard as the main poker room for pro players.

Simon Trumper says


"The correct ruling was made. However, in the interests of standardising rules we are going to look at the TDA rules for this situation and are prepared to consider altering our rule if its in the best interests of the game. We'll consider this ruling, and the actual situation of this post, at our next TD meeting"

I doubt if more than 1% of footballers have read the laws of the game but I've never played with anyone who doesn't understand them

you don't need to have read a book to know that the situation in the op is ridid

AFAIK, it's a standard Grosvenor Rule, or was the last I knew. That does not mean to say they all implement it, or implement it correctly.

How do you twist "retain the right to act" into the hand being declared dead?

Read CF's post please before you reply.

Perfect, next case.

not often i agree but VALID POINT
p.s dont know how to highlight in bold writing hense caps lock on!

why good topic ? intersting why rules vary from north to south of england! An if there is a leading card room in the uk surely they should set the standard for the best of the best of rules being known throughout the UK?

I have no doubt that this was a correct ruling

If DTD's rule is worded as Tikay suggested they all usually are, the "right to act" is open to interpretation - and the "may lose" rather than "will lose" means there are 3 or 4 rulings that could have been applied and they all would be correct

The more pertinent question is whether this was the appropriate ruling for this circumstance.

lol yeah ty ty, still feels like £2k lost though  :(

I don't think so - lets have the text of the relevant rule please.

i think by the length of the thread an the apparent proof that other places would of not killed hand it becomes clear commen sense was lacking here!

Big Charra


The Vic may well be the pre-eminent card-room in the country.....but if not even the Grosvenor estate uses the rules the Vic uses, then why is anyone else going to?

can anyone find this? I've just looked through dtd's rules as published online and can't find anything referring to this situation. do they defer to tda rules if their own don't cover something?

in fact the only mention of a hand ever being ruled dead is after a countdown when a clock's been called

mmm bit hostile there tighty !rofl not saying the vic is the top dog as like i said before every place has good points an bad points that will cater for differant clients but in London an generally in the Vic to be pacific has ovbvioulsy  more professinal poker players playing there for higher stakes so i would think there rules are more on par to please the Us an European clients that go through the doors an im trying to be non biased in the agument wheres i feel others maybe defending the ruling in the base of loyalty of Dtd as a club for saying the ruling is right ? Just my opionion !
This is not an attack at Dtd its an opinion of the rules being differant at 2 of the main Card rooms in the UK ?

Not hostile at all

I think standardisation is a good thing, and regard the Vic and DTD as 2 of the best rooms in the UK.

My point is that standardisation across different organisations is a way away, when even venues under the same ownersahip operate different rules..though this is down in this case to a Grosvenor corporate strategy that has each venue operating to "local" rules set by local management

But this posts demonstrates perfectly why a simple 'read the rules' response doesn't resolve the issue here.

The cardroom ruling may have been applied perfectly in this particular case.  The issue here is that the general sentiment of replies is one of surprise at this, and additionally that the principle of the rule applied is 'wrong'.

I'm grateful that the topic was raised, because I've learned something new today that I can, in theory, protect myself from in future.  The problem here is that, in my opinion, I can't adquately protect myself from angle-shooters wishing to take advantage of this rule as applied.

just joking m8 its all toungue an cheek its just an tersting topic which surely long term may be beneficary because its about time the uk has standard rules for all clubs no matter who owns them as most of same people play all tours so can only benefit the clubs an players long term as a collective!

Excellent point

ok to be frank something stinks here.

It seems to me that because DtD have a big influence here, a legitimate grievance is being ignored by some senior figures on this forum.

Not at all, imo. I am at DTD and have spoken to two of the TDs and Simon Trumper about the thread..asked them to look at it and they have agreed to consider the thread/rule/situation


Whether they do so or not is nothing to do with me or any "senior" blonde figures, its up to DTD.


I've said I've seen this exact rule applied at DTD and other UK card-rooms, which I have, but equally understand the concerns which many express

FWIW I wasn't wearing sunglasses or headphones lol

I have played poker all over the world and I have never seen this ruling applied or seen a written rule that would support this ruling.

I have seen (preflop) someone facing a bet having their hand killed.

fine. I have seen it applied in the UK both here and elsewhere (Luton, Walsall being two and I was on the table for both rulings). This is what led me to refer to is as "standard", probably incorrectly it seems!

rich, have you def seen it applied when penalised player could have checked rather than when facing a bet

Couldn't say, to be frank. I get the distinction, too.

After much thought I think the correct ruling should be that my bet is now classed as a call, because there were no players left to act between the bettor and I, so if my action was taken as a check, and the bet was 400 and I have thrown a 500 chip in without verbally announcing anything then it should be a call.

I'm still really upset with the ruling and feel a bit let down by DTD as I would always trust them to make the correct ruling and ALWAYS have logic behind it.

It's a real shame that this event taken away that view that DTD is a "fortress" of poker and is now very much like every other cardroom, I know alot of others feel the same.

If the OP vehemently stated that he checked UTG, then he gets all his options, right? The dealer says he didn't see him check, but the OP can say that the dealer must gave seen him check otherwise why did he allow the play to continue round the table?

So to counter this rule you can lie, and possibly angle shoot?

Doesn't that make the rule a bad one?

pls stop using that word - there was a ruling, there is no rule.

Despite the actual ruling I think dealers should get a hard time over this sort of thing. You pay juice to the casino to facilitate your playing of the game. The responsibility should lie with dealers/casino to provide the framework so you can just relax and play that game. If you're contemplating a decision you shouldn't be tasked with marshalling the game as well. It isn't at all hard for a dealer to control the action. You hold your outstretched hand towards the player acting and hold it there until the player acts, then you announce the action before moving your hand to the next player in a clockwise rotation. If somebody acts out of turn you shout what the feck at them before returning with a smile to the original player. That is not a hard accomplishment and I think it's service you'd reasonably expect to be delivered during a game.

i dont post very often but read forum everyday!!!
 but i feel i have to put my opionion on this subject......... in my humble oppinion this is where our country has a total LACK OF COMMON SENSE
WHY  can the dealers and t/d see that there was no angle shooting in this instance.
the DEALER SHOULD KEEP UP WITH THE ACTION and anounce check check then the player in sb would have looked up and said hang on i havent acted yet
had he sat and watched everyone check then bet 400 then yes the ruling is correct or had he had his hood up and headphones on and not payed attention to the action rulling would be correct
COMMON SENSE thats all it is
and had this happen at my local casino you expect it but its no good stating a rule that has been inforced by somone because it is not black and white rule
its one that should be applied thru COMMON SENSE

Agreed. I just don't think management of the flow of table action is one of them.

Apart from that, everything Mantis said.

And sack all dealers and get these instead, prob solved.
(http://www.unknownpoker.com/images/pokertekTable.jpg)

My mistake, I thought the ruling was being made off the back of a rule.  If there's no rule, that makes the ruling even harder to agree with imo.

I a confused. I thought there was a rule? Although I believe in this case common sense should have applied. 

If there is not a rule then this ruling is very unfair on the OP. f there is a rule I can at least see we DtD is coming from, even if I don't agree with it.

What is the actual rule in this circumstance, I was sure that the rule mentioned earlier in the thread about three people taking action was correct. Are we saying the correct application of this rule is that the OP should have not been able to make any aggressive action on this betting round and can therefore only call the bet.

There has been some speculation about what the rule could be - OP was not advised of the relevant rule, Gatso couldn't find the rule on their website and DtD while maintaning that their ruling was correct have not disclosed the rule on which it was based.

 

from my previous a few weeks ago i was told they defer to TDA rules

that`s what I`d assumed. can`t find anything relating to this situation in tda rules either though. anyone else?

Will quote the rule when I get home. TDA prob don't cover it explicitly - they're usually tournament specific rules. Just refer to rrs for other rules. The two sets complement each other without any major contradictions.

For those saying there should be standardised rules... There are. TDA/RR. Just tell grosvenor etc to actually follow them.

Bingo. If this is the rule (which is ambiguous in it's wording so it's clearly not black and white anyway) then so be it, but the TD surely has to use common sense here?

my thoughts. FWIW

i can safely say the masses agree the ruling wasn't wrong its just its a bad rule, its very exploitable and just WRONG an innocent party suffers no matter who's mistake it was players/dealer/td/whoever.....

   now poker is apparently THE most played game in the world, billions of pounds are ploughed into this industry and it is not even properly regulated. now if FIFA in football seen a rule that just wasn't right the next season they would change it, its in the interest of their sport/game......so ffs somebody with a bit of influence in the poker world start a governing body....grosvenor, gala, stanleys etc etc etc...may well be stubborn with their rules at present, but if a governing body like FIFA, UEFA, THE FA in football was started in the poker world, the casino's wouldn't really have a say and would back down eventually as players will vote with their feet if a venue wasn't playing to "set in stone fair rules" made by "a governing body" surely this is the next step for poker to continue moving forward.....Tikay has repeated a few times in this thread that this rule has been around for years.....this is the point, a bad rule has been in effect for years and nobody has done anything to change the rule to suit the interests/integrity of the game.
   the amount of arguments i have seen at tables because of mistunderstanding of rules either by the player or the cardroom staff is countless, these frequent disagreements would reduce massively if the rules were policed better and surely that's got to be in the interests of the game. TDA rules are there but tbf they are very unclear, hence the difference in opinions and rules from cardroom to cardroom.

 poker has got to move on and stop living in the dark ages


rant over ;)

why put FWIW when youve already told us what it`s worth?

A tuppence can vary in value depending on whether or not you're in the film Mary Poppins.

admittedly it was claimed that it would increase in value if invested. however inflation was never accounted for so I don`t feel we ever knew if the real value would increase although if the bird woman kept her prices the same I guess we could buy more bags of breadcrumbs

12. To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act. You cannot forfeit your right to act if any player in front of you has not acted, only if you fail to act when it legally becomes your turn. Therefore, if you wait for someone whose turn comes before you, and three or more players act behind you, this still does not hinder your right to act.

The key word here is "may". The above rule could maybe do with an example to illustrate the point. But I do believe DTD have misapplied the rule here. The word may implies that the hand will not always be dead. The situation in the OP is one such scenario imo.

(For the sake of simplicity i'm using right to act/dead hand interchangibly. If you don't have a right to act on your hand then your hand is dead)

"May lose the right to act" and "have their hand declared dead" are entirely different things.  The writer of the rule understands what both things mean and decided to use the former phrase.  

It is quite obvious to me that the purpose of this rule is to stop someone gaining information or advantage from out of turn actions.  In this case the advantage gained was the information of the players checking.  Therefore OP should not have been allowed to bet had everyone checked.  However, that didn't happen and the pre-flop raiser bet, so there has been no advantage gained and the hand should proceed as usual.

I really can't understand how the above is in any way a difficult concept.

I think the bird woman would be slow to increase her prices because on such a cheap item, an increase of magnitude equal to 1x the smallest possible unit of currency would still represent a significant % increase on a bag of feed (plus she'd have to come up with a new song.)

She could start putting less feed in the bags I suppose. That might work

what makes us even think that dtd use RR?

if they don`t then you may as well quote verses from the bible and expect them to rule based on that

if they do then the ruling is clearly horrific

yeah, pretty sure that`s what happened with the whole wagon wheels getting smaller thing

They use TDA which isn't extensive enough on its own to cover everything. I'm assuming they use RR for everything else - presumably their rulings aren't plucked from thin air and are based on something. And all rulings I've seen them give are consistent with RRs.

Was getting Molly a 20p mix up the other day and remember thinking that the 1p sweets looked a lot smaller than when I were 'lad.
Put it down to me just being bigger now and so the sweeties just seem smaller. Seems I'm very wrong, just didn't think about it all that deeply.

I can't blame the sweetie people, inflation is what it is. So I wonder how small 1p sweets will get in my lifetime? Will I live to see the day that they're taken off the shelves (even in Scottish sweet shops) altogether?

please stop posting in blue cf - I can't read your posts without highlighting them first and it's it's a pain the arse :kiss:

what will go first, pennies or penny sweets? I think it was a close run thing with the 1/2p

Doing away with pennies is going to be problematic because of the odd numbered 5 pence piece.

That would have to go at the same time surely for the world to work? For this reason I'm going to go with the penny sweet the first to go.

When I bought my mix up, I did notice that that the chick behind the counter didn't bother counting to check how many 1p sweets were in the small white paper bag.
I announced "20 pence" and was not audited.

They always used to count them back in the day, I wonder if that's because I'm an adult now and so a greater level of trust is apportioned to me than when I was a child, or whether the sweeties are so small now that they look just too much effort to count individually.

Maybe it's a bit of both, with possible third factor being decline in professionalism of corner shop counter assistants.

when?

yeah, that`d be complicated. like when I used to play in poland and the first 3 levels were 10/20, 20/40 and 25/50. took me ages to figure out why I`d get told off for putting a 25 chip in the pot for my small blind during level 2. never occurred to me that there were no 5 chips so the dealer couldn`t make change

for that reason I`m with you on the sweets going first

On reflection I don't think this is very fair.

Business practice in corner shops has changed a lot in the last 20 years. They've much more to worry about now (I'm thinking extra products like lottery shite, and increased customer expectation of speed of service etc etc) and so counting sweeties has perhaps justifiably dropped down their list of priorities.

the dude I used to buy my 10p mix from on the way home from school was blind. I'd completely forgotten about this until just now. you put the sweets you wanted in a little box, I think it was one of the ones that packs of chewing gum come in, then he'd count them out into a little paper bag. then you paid him and he'd sort out your change by feel

Cf, you can't just start incl rr at will. You either use them or you don't. There are several key differences (such as rules at showdown) etc.

I posted the situation, using the words of the OP, onto a mailing list of mainly US players last night.  I asked for their expected ruling, without giving the DTD ruling in the post.

One of the first replies received was from Linda Johnson, whom I believe is a director of the TDA.  Her reply (posted with permission) was as follows:


This is consistent with what I would have expected the ruling to have been, and certainly seems to apply more 'common sense'.

Note that the 'significant action' element is consistent with Tikay's and others posts.  The actual ruling, however, is not.

Repeating my post as it's now lost in the other thread...

Fair point - DTD don't explicitly use them.

But TDA rules aren't designed to cover everything. They cover tournament specific situations and ignore a lot of the more fundamental rules of the game. TDA rules are designed to work on top of your in house rules. There may be one or two minor differences (feel free to quote me any major differences) - in this scenario I believe you follow the TDA version.

I've looked at DTDs rules on their site. They have TDA and a few of their own house rules, but they aren't extensive enough to cover every scenario - including this one.

The ruling given in OP was because 3 people had acted behind. This rule is from RRs so i'm assuming that's what they're following.

Excellent modding.

1p sweets have to go before the penny, otherwise how would somebody buy a single sweet? They would have to pay with three 2ps and get 5p change. I can't see many 5 year olds figuring that out, let alone many shop owners being bothered with it. More likely they will just insist on selling the sweets in pairs, therefore making them effectively one 2p sweet that comes in two parts.

However, if there certain lines of 1p sweets that they're struggling to sell they could always sell three for the price of two, helping them clear stock that might go out of date otherwise and also negating the problem surrounding the lack of suitable currency to facilitate the purchase of a single sweet.

I'm pretty sure I used to get 1/2p sweets in my 10p mix-ups as a kid.  Maybe they're the 1p sweets of today?

Bubblegums and gobstoppers were always the full 1p though.

That OJ Simpson one was a bit iffy too.

but they got rid of 1/2p coins before 1/2p sweets. sweets were then 2 for a penny for a while before they scrapped them as well

can't really see the chancellor going 'well yeah chaps, I know it makes sense to scrap the penny but I can't possibly do it until the sweet companies alter their offerings or the poor kidz will get confused'

I don't remember ever being able to get 1/2p sweets, but unfortunately am old enough to remember the 1/2p being in circulation.  My shop must have been a rip off.

I can remember pre-decimalisation ha'penny sweets. In fact, I can remember when you could get two sweets for a ha'penny.

Sigh...

As long as the kidz can still get their ciggies and booze, they'll be fine.

You're talking a load of aniseed balls.

Aniseed balls.  The ideal sweet for nits.  Was there a better way of getting your 1/4 of sweets to last longer?

I can remember calling at a girls house to take her out on a pictures and chip shop date.

Her mother looked pointedly at me and said  "See that she's back by 10" and then, to the daughter as we departed, " And you... keep yer 'and on yer ha'penny"

LOL....I can hear her voice now, probably sounding like Ivy from the cafe in Last of The Summer Wine.

Back in the day you also had to "be careful where you dip your radish" in some circles.

Sorry to resurrect this, but I do have a query.

Do the dealers at DTD commentate on their games? For instance, when I am pointing at you and you check, I'll say "check" and move on to the next player? I find it hard to imagine a player cannot notice this occurring. I personally feel this situation, along with so many other out of turn action scenarios, stem from the fact that the "silent" check has risen to such prominence. 

Ahh..... Dipping radishes. I wonder if anyone still does that these days? (Apart from metaphorically of course)

I think the majority do (and that's how they've been trained/told to do it), but as they often bring in a lot of dealers from elsewhere for the larger events I guess it's possible that the dealer in this instance didn't.  Like you said, if the dealer clarifies the action from each player, any misunderstanding can be dealt with immediately.  In the .50/1 cash games the one I see often is someone raising to £4 and throwing in a £5 chip but announcing 'four' before they do.  To the dealer, especially if it's noisy the 'four' can sound very much like 'call'.  So the dealer will say 'call?' or 'four?' and get clarification before moving on to the next player.  I usually show four fingers if I'm throwing in a single chip but raising to £4, or of course the player can say "raise to £4' to make it clear what they want to do.

Is Simon going to comment on this thread?

The dealers are only told to announce when the action changes, but they are told to follow the play with their hand.

I would love to comment on this thread but know this point will be raised in the supervisors meeting tomorrow, so will refrain until after the meeting. I am sure Simon will also comment after the meeting. 

Should your dealers look at a players cards when they scoop them in as he's away from the table?

Absolutely not, and they will get bollocked if we ever catch them

Girdy you massive grass.

Lol, as if you didnt know the answer to that already.

Just saying!

Dealers may have been trained to a high standard but obv standards slip after a while and bad habits are creeping in!

Is it ok for me to look at my hole cards when I get back to the table after they've been dealt and the hand is already dead? Well, I don't really care whether it's ok or not because I'm looking at them cards 100% of the time.

No they should already be in the muck, even if they are identifiable they shouldn't be disclosed to anyone. Absolutely no point looking, no point asking and stop slowing the bloody game down  :)up

So while a dealer is looking at a players dead cards is he/she fully concentrating on the action taking place??

I refer the Rt Honorable Gentleman to the answer previously stated.

If you had said something to the TD at the time rather than on a forum a couple of days later then maybe we could try and nip this in the bud.


EDIT: there may well be a legitimate reason for the dealer to look at a particular card, for instance if it is marked but in general there should be no other reason.

Is +EV as if you see T3o and board comes TTTxx and there's two players raising each other it gives you sick mad info

I'd paid £336 to play a poker comp!! Do u think I wanna get outta my seat to go tell the td that their dealers are looking at peoples cards without good reason!!

And it only came back to my mind when looking at this thread!! Which happens to be on a poker forum which discusses poker related topics!!

Girgy, I do understand where you are coming from. But please tell me that you can understand my point. I would hate for a dealer to do this in a comp I was playing and would immediately inform the TD. When we have to read about this sort of thing on a forum (especially when it refers to a comp that we were running) it is rather infuriating.

I can completely understand a forums population discussing rules, it's par for the course ....... we probably get around 20 floor calls a comp, so it makes sense that sometimes a decision may not sit well. But when you are talking about the behavior of our dealers, it would be much more productive to tell us directly. Then discuss on a forum about the poor standard etc. At least we can reply with a pro active response, or we can be slagged off for doing nothing. But when we find out something like this on days when the cardroom is closed, how would you want us to deal with it?

And whilst we are talking about the lack of standards, when dealers read things like this Do you think that comments like this would help them aspire to high standards?

fyp

Was actually hoping for a pm

Which font would you prefer your customers used?

ANYTHING EXCEPT BLUE COLOURED :)

good point actually


fmfyp

Personally I think the dealers at DTD and in most places I've played are excellent. Recently there was a thread posted asking if people had any common criticisms of dealers. Obviously there are some little niggles and pet hates I might have posted but I didn't want to post anything negative because I think the dealers on whole do a great job and I am constantly impressed by the pride they take in their work. Having worked in a supermarket and in the public sector I've seen people who take no pride in their work and hate their relatively easy jobs/lives as a result, so it's nice to see.

Basically, just wanted to add a bit of positive feedback. I'm pretty sure most people who come through the doors feel the same way but because standards are so high at DTD people don't feel the need to comment when things are good.

Many Thanks Skolsuper, I am sure every dealer regardless of where they work would respond much better to this kind of feedback rather than being called skanks from an estate with no brains.

Tips me 'at guv

You have to remember that most poker players spend most of the time losing, evening the better winning ones in tournaments. That naturally turns many of them to whining bastards that will moan about stuff that isn't that important because they have just done their bollocks. I'm not necessarily talking about this thread. but just generally. I think we all realise that 90% of dealers do a great job 98% of the time. Who of us in our jobs doesn't make mistakes from time to time? Nobody.............

Great post!

We take DTD for granted, but my God, we'd miss it if it were gone.

So would blonde.

There's always an opportunity during the breaks to have a quiet word with the TD about a dealer.  I've had to do it once before at DTD and spoke to Tom who was TDing at the time.  I can't even remember now what the dealer was doing, but I do remember saying to Tom that the reason it stood out so much is because the standard is usually so high. 

As long as people complain constructively (and don't launch ridiculous attacks on the dealers in general) then it's good for both the players and the club (including the dealers).  I suppose it's like going to a good restaurant and getting a meal that's fantastic but maybe the wine glasses are dirty.  You'd mention this to the staff and they'd rectify the problem.  At a crappy restaurant you might not bother as it's probably only a small thing amongst all the others that aren't right (and you might worry about them spitting in your food).

Be fair mate, he did call them "semi-attractive".

I would love it if all players read both these sets of rules and kept up to date with changes/clarifications. There's no need for anything else to be written, these are the standard and the rules do the job very well, apllication of those rules is of course down to the quality of TD.

But not every venue follows these rules, and there are also different interpretations of the rules at different venues - and often at the same venues by different members of staff.

Further to the meeting yesterday, it has been agreed by all that the rule we use at the moment does not serve it's purpose very well. We all agreed that the rule needs changing in line with major cardrooms across the world. This will be done ASAP!

At the moment RR is

12. To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act. You cannot forfeit your right to act if any player in front of you has not acted, only if you fail to act when it legally becomes your turn. Therefore, if you wait for someone whose turn comes before you, and three or more players act behind you, this still does not hinder your right to act.

However something does not sit comfortable with a few of us regarding this rule, and it would be great if we can have some feedback on this:
If a player is facing a bet and there are 3 or more actions after him/her, and then the player calls "time" he has too much information to be considered fair, even if his action is made passive he still may be priced in. The fact that he hasn't noticed 3 people put money into a pot (as this will never be instant) it is still the players responsibility to follow the action

Caro and Cookes rule are more comprehensive and should eliminate a possible stroke:

8.02. ACTING PROMPTLY.
A player is entitled to a reasonable time to think about his action, but should in no other way slow the game down. If a player wishes to take time to act he must stop the action by calling “Time.” Failure to stop the action before there has been substantial action behind a player may cause the player to lose his right to act. If the player is facing a bet when he has lost the right to act he shall be deemed to have folded, and his hand is dead. If he is not facing a bet when he has lost the right to act he will be deemed to have checked. A player does not forfeit his right to act if any player in front of him has not yet acted, so that the failure of another to act properly in turn shall not cause another player to lose his right of action, even if there is substantial action behind the second player who has not yet acted. All action made behind a player who has not acted shall be binding, so long as the action by the delaying player or any other intervening player does not change the action which the person acting behind him is facing.

Please discuss

Can we apologize to Sack it off for being at the end of the original ruling and thank him for bringing this to light. FWIW every TD would have given the same ruling as that was our rule at the time and would have been consistent, but we all realize that our rule was not being used for the intention that it was made. Thank You.

Would be nice to give Sack it Off a free entry to the next £300 tournament as way of apology.

Unfortunately that was our rule at the time Keith. Whether it be right or wrong.

Another point on the Agenda was the standard of dealing including but not exclusive Girgy's legitimate complaint of dealers looking at mucked cards. I had pm'd Girgy regarding this and unfortunately he didn't remember the dealer in question.

Some notices will be in the staffroom very shortly (they may be there now), once everyone has read them we will be going down the disciplinary route if dealers do not abide by them. I hope this will lead to a better and consistent standard of dealing by all.

Many Thanks for raising the point, keep them coming if needed.

dtd is the nts. wp dik9.

It's not me mate it's the team but thank you

As it's been raised....

I came up a few months ago to play one of the super 50 events.  I took down a pot on the turn with two pair and the guy I was in the pot with folded top pair, top kicker face up.  Totally unprompted, the dealer continued to deal out the river 'just to see'.  I noticed after reading the DTD rules prompted by this thread that rabbit hunting is forbidden.  I've never seen it happen before or since, but don't visit very often.  None of the other players at the table batted an eyelid though, which made me suspect it wasn't that unusual an occurrence, but had the dealer asked if anyone minded i would have objected.

And well played for reconsidering the rule that prompted this thread :)up

You are absolutely correct Claw, Rabbit Hunting is strictly forbidden, this will also be on the notice. TY

First of all - WP dtd, an excellent response

I dont want to suggest a specific ruling, as I am sure that you guys will have more involvement and expereince with regard to situations than most.

However I dont think that the rule needs to be fixed for DIFFERENT scenarios. I think that you should make a very clear distcintion between checking and betting.

A check is frequently silent and can be very swift to get through 3 players (lets say level 1 in an 8 way limped pot). The person wanting to take action (as in this hand) should NOT be penalised.

However, if there has been a bet and 3 people CALL (or whatever) then I would happily accept a different ruling in this scenario. The dealer will at least have spoken at this point (in all likelihood) to have at least alerted the player to the actions.

For me if players have checked out of turn - the original player should have all options open

If he is facing bets - I am very uncomfortable with his hand being dead (esp if only say 2 players have acted quickly as they are the only ones left in). but i do see the player can gain an advantage. - I probably prefer no aggresive action at this point.

I think another point to consider when making the ruling  (assuming this is all post flop discussion) is what happens if the turn gets dealt (although the player would have to be really unaware to not have seen the dealer tap the table) - just throwing it out there as I have seen it happen

Thank you for your opinion Guy, duly noted.

The action of the dealer dealing the turn is construed as one action.

For the sake of balance, I just want to say that in my opinion, the vast majority of the dealers at DTD are excellent.

Pretty much what I said. The second rule you quoted seems to me to be the same, just with added clarification.

Two questions if you could answer them please..

1) What ruleset does DTD follow other than TDA? I'm presuming it's RRs?

2) If it is RRs I think there's an argument to be made that the ruling in the OP was NOT correct. It clearly includes the line "may lose the right to act". I would argue that perhaps RRs could use some clarification to their rule, but that the actual rule itself isn't incorrect - merely that your application of it was incorrect. Thoughts? (No biggie btw, even DTD are allowed mistakes, but it sits a bit uncomfortable with me that you all thought the original ruling was correct).

FWIW - I'm at DTD a fair bit (might even be going tonight) and I've NEVER seen this happen. I've seen a dealer being asked to rabbit hunt and refusing, as per the rules. Possibly it was a temp dealer? You can always tell a "proper" DTD dealer from a temp one, I find - the DTD trained ones are very consistent. I'm sure any temp dealers are encouraged to read the house rules, but maybe this could be double checked?

DTD is the proper nuts. Yes, maybe the ruling was an unfortunate one, but it was by the rules at the time, and engaging with the players like this is a credit to them, IMHO.

all dealers at DTD should be trained to deal (and look like) Harvey

It has only been the last 2 version's that RR has tried to incorporate the TDA rules or at least compliment them. The TDA are the rules we use, but you will notice that these leave many grey areas as it doesn't go into too much detail.

When we first opened the managers and supervisors tried to go through every rule in different situations (different versions) and discuss the best way to handle each rule. We all know that there are grey areas with most rules as each situation is different, but we use TDA as guidelines. If any TD anywhere feels that a particular situation which is stated in any set of rules is unfair, the TD can overule any rule in the interest of the game. I admit it that this could have been implemented in this case. We may have missed some situations out in this period but there are a lot of scenarios to go by, I remember when we covered this rule, and looking back we only covered "when facing action".

As Roberts Rules contradicted some of the TDA rules when we first opened we used TDA and filled in the gaps with House Rules that we all agreed on.

I am not 100% but if you go back a couple of versions I believe you will find that RR goes with "if substantial action has passed a player who has not yet acted, his hand will be declared dead"

Rather than referring to 2 sets of rules, I have asked Simon if I can draft one set of comprehensive rules that actually include ALL the TDA rules and most probably RR. This will not be intended to be "another set" just a fully comprehensive set of DTD rules that can be referred to. This may take some time and will have to be approved by all TD's at DTD.

What you must understand is that in the UK pre 2002 all casino's had nothing but "House Rules" From Luton Southwards, when it came to rules people used The Vic's, and from Northampton Northwards every casino based it's Rules on The Rainbow's. Some of the rules are actually laughable now, but some "old skool" smaller cardrooms still use these old ones, company's bought each other out and rules were distorted*. When the internet kicked in TD's realized how wrong they had got it, the majority adapted and changed but even then the American Rules could not be adapted fully because they contradicted the Gaming Guidelines for poker. It doesn't help that even America hasn't got standard Rules, the closest thing to standard is the TDA.

* this is probably the main reason why all mainstream UK cardrooms do not have the same rules.

Gotta go to work lol

1. The Supervisor's decision is final.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxA6zxBMzp8

Sorry, couldn't resist. He is a superb dealer. Unless Harvey isn't who I'm thinking of, in which case I've made a huge fool of myself :).

you've sorted it now going forward, but "losing the right to act" and "hand declared dead" are not the same thing and the writer of the rule deliberately used one and not the other.  He must therefore have intended that there would be scenarios where a hand would not be declared dead (clarified in your post).

Cheers for the clarification :)

No ty!

^^THIS^^

Possibly the worst dealer in there!

What did Harvey say when you told him that?

FWIW, I'd happily sit at Harvey's Table all day & all night, he's brilliant, & keeps the game moving super fast. And he does subtle humour, which maybe you struggle with. ;)

I have nothing againt him personally! But his dealing sucks!

Quite so.

What did he say when you told him that?

He wasnt there last weekend. Maybe i should tell a TD on the side then they can get him in for some extra training.

Was he there when his dealing sucked?

They also have a suggestion box, for all players to give feedback on any DTD related matter.

Too subtle by half, Tom.

Yea it tilted the hell outta me i darnt even speak up!

Next time I'm there il pick a suggestion card up before i sit at my table and mark down every little discrepancy!

Harvey- great guy and character. I have actually raised it with Simon before because I don't think he riffles the deck correctly- oddly I've not been at a table where he's dealt since so have no idea whether this has been corrected or not.

This was my point.

I apologise if i came across like i was attacking the guy personally. This was not the case and i have no problem with the guy except the point G2L made about the riffle. Maybe i should of raised the issue privately.

Girgy, there's a big difference between 'his dealing sucks', and 'i don't think he riffles the deck correctly'.... 'i have no problem with the guy except this point'.

You would probably get a better response if your initial posts were a tad less aggressive.

Also, mud sticks - not really fair to target individuals, and their jobs, on an open forum.

This.

That.

And the next thing!

I was on Harvey's table for an hour or so during the Sky thingy a few weeks back and his riffle has improved a lot.

He's obviously worked on it and it shows.

I remember saying on another thread at least six months ago that I loved Harvey as a dealer except for his shuffling which tilted me hard. I am pleased to say that this is no longer the case.

Harvey rocks.

Whatever happened to Harvey's Bristol Cream?  Does it still sell loads, as I've not seen it advertised for donkey's.

Tatiana Harvey, complete with Bristols.

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3BcLK6nd5p3UJgtnNfJsz2dKeeMhiGC2NvbreyId1wDGr8Qc&t=1&usg=__WHwpYPK_Xyb8c6YLmdqEUkg6q1g=)

Or...

Donkeys don't like it.   ;marks;

I'm intrigued on how you know this, it could be the making of a great Red-Dog story.

;)

Sounds like he tried to woo one in his youth, and thought that all it'd take would be a few glasses of sherry and he'd be able to get his wicked way.  'e orrrlways used to try it on apparently.

tytyty for reply DTD

Guess I have to respect that if I play at DTD it's their rules I play by. Just thought on this occasion that the wrong ruling was made

Why is there. 17 Pages? the ruling is correct, its not wrong its 100%right. Also the tds
ruling is final, no 2nd opinion. Jog on.

absolutely this, harvey is a brilliant dealer, keeps the game flowing , with a dry sense of humour to keep the banter flowing.

It's a poker forum. We talk about poker and give our opinions.

Welcome to blonde.

no point he'll never post again, just an ignorant troll.

what would trumper do? lol he doesn't have any say in rulings
Its up to the supervisor.

Can someone describe for me what an incorrect riffle is?

How about if 1 person checks, the next person quickly bets and the person after snap calls?  Is the hand dead?  Or how about 2 quick checks and a bet?

Got to say...... generally the dealers at dtd are brilliant. There is the odd mistake and the occasional thing that I dont like, but far far less than those made by the players on the table. If something really bothered me I would just mention it politely to the dealer concerned. One thing that really winds me up is poker players being rude to dealers and blaming then for their poor play/luck. I just played a 2 day self deal tourny in swansea, and took it upon myself to deal throughout, it probably meant a lot more hands per hour then the other tables ( is this to your advantage or disadvantage?) and the others on the table were more than happy. Yeah I made the odd mistake, but think it went ok..... my point - by the end of 7 hours on the first day I was bloody knackered, my back ached and my head hurt. Yes I had to play hands, but those who know me would realise that folding does not take too much effort. I also didnt have to take too much of the constant whining that normally goes on, as they were merely offered the option of dealing. Before we are too critical of delaers - try it - I know it is their job - but we really dont appreciate how lucky we are to have the good ones.

As far as the OP. the ambiguity of the rule is both the problem and the solution. common sense needs to be applied, if you opt for a rigid interpretation there will be times that it wil appear unjust.

In this case a ruling was made  in the ultimate bet classic in Aruba, by Jack McClelland (ex wsop, wpt etc), witnessed by Pab and myself.
A guy pauses to think what bet raise to make preflop ( he claims he said raise - noone heard). there are 3 very quick checks before he yells for them to stop. He argues that he wants to raise and that it was not his fault, it was pointed out that he now had a lot of free information. The ruling was that he was allowed a min raise ( he was not impressed), he was also informed that if action had taken place after 3 checks he would have been deemed to have checked. He could therefore reopen the betting.

We discussed this at length and decided that this was probably the best compromise . It was also suggested that he paid better attention, which did not improve his sense of humour

the thing i like about harvey is that he helps move the game on, the thing tht tilts me the most is when a player keeps repeatedly taking too long over non trivial decisions....ie when it is on him he feels he should finish off his conversation before he looks at his cards and folds. Harvey is very good and nudging these players and making them act. However, he is still respectfull and understand when somebody has a genuine decision. Some people complain when a dealer is talkative, i am not a fan when they are discussing hands or something not relevant, however i feel what Harvey says helps the game progress.

I had not noticed any problems with his riffling so hopefully that has been corrected.