The Kindle Fire is due out in January (12th I think) supposed to be less than a ton and is said to be ipads biggest rival (probably due to Amazons connection). http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/884123-amazon-kindle-fire-to-go-on-sale-in-uk-in-january-with-100-price-tag

I am not on about vetoing (is that a word), I am on about a proposal of a deal from someone who has another stake on the table (that maybe undeclared) to ensure a small stack gets more than they should. Or a deal like lets all take x and play for the rest etc.

And all I am saying, is that if it affects play (rightly or wrongly) then the boundaries have changed somewhat.

Edit: @dik9: I had the same thought re: stewards, imo full disclosure with the TD not interfering in real-time, delaying payments and getting a panel to rule on things afterwards is probably the absolute fairest way of dealing with it, but faced with all these practicalities I think people would prefer the status quo, and I don't think there's a middle ground.

That's fine, unfortunately the status quo, is at the TD's discretion once again (so peeps better trust the TD )

Another point in question on the subject of horses which again is a grey area for me, should a backer have a say in a proposed deal at the table? It seems that nowadays if a deal is proposed a large % have to phone or ask a backer. Even worse a deal is proposed by a player who has a stake in a short stack at the table.

Also, it isn't about all about the cards. It is the cough that appears or the tap of the table etc which is communicating with said horse that will always be seen as cheating. Squeezing players is almost always between savers.

As a TD this is a really grey area for me as explained in Augusts Grand Prix thread, last couple of pages.

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=54787.360

What is the difference between pre tourney saver/% or during?

If it affects play it is essentially wrong.

With large stables it is possible for example 5 out of 6 players belonging to that stable being the 6th player I would not feel very comfortable if I knew, if I didn't know and found out later I would be calling foul.

Two short stacks 3 handed go for a fag and agree to have % of each other without the CL knowing........... right or wrong? What's the difference?

As a TD if I know %'s have been swapped pre should it be my duty to inform the rest of the players, as if I found out %'s were swapped during a FT without everyones knowledge then I would stop the comp there and then.

My only concern, as a backer myself, would be an over-zealous TD seeing chip-dumping and soft-play where there is none. I don't want to have to be constantly trying to second-guess what a certain TD considers an 'acceptable fold' in order to avoid a penalty. For that reason, and the problem of how to enforce the rule on people who don't want to declare their interest willingly, I think the rule is unworkable.

I share this concern, obviously a TD will have to way up whether some decisions are bad play or soft play, the chances are if the TD knows "friends" are on the table then all of a sudden bad play is auto seen as soft play, leaving the outcome entirely in the TD's hands. All of a sudden a TD's "opinion" has now shaped the whole outcome. With all the RFID technology and hole cards being shown everything is scrutinised so you are damned if you do and damned if you dont because all of a sudden it is not about the players play it is about the TD's interpretation of the play.

It would be poor of me to sweep it under the carpet, although to be completely honest I would rather not know and assume everyone was playing to win for themselves rather than getting their horse to ladder at the expense of someone else. With hole card technology becoming more popular it does need to be addressed. It may mean that in the future play is reviewed after the event a bit like a stewards enquiry, money withheld until a panel looks at it, rather than an individuals opinion. I am not saying that will happen but just a thought.

Depends on the players, if you insta act/ tight table then 60 + is achievable, even with the fastest dealer if you have one or two oscar nominees can be reduced to less than 10 before people get racked off and leave.

Counted one of my dealers (he was unaware i was counting) 2 days ago on a 50/1 nlhe 7 handed at 43 and that was not excessively fast, the players didn't mess around.

Pretty specialist. Goes over a lot of people's heads and a lot of people won't get it.

 

Maths teacher always told me to remember the word pointless, always points to the lesser. Worked for me lol

Was the card face up in flight, or an attempted face down muck?

It's not a case of asking for the hand to be killed, it's more a case of the rules state if a card leaves the table, then the hand is dead.

Very much ^^^ this, but it usually means before the hand has finished, otherwise a dead hand in this spot should result in the previous bet being returned. Could be used as a stroke.

On reflection, As this is an all-in situation, hand should be live unless the card goes out of view.

What would be the ruling if he threw his cards face up into the muck? I think that is a comparable!

Face up into the muck, the cards have been tabled (badly) and are live.

'Could' is too ambiguous rich. What SHOULD happen?

Agree with tikay's sentiment. As long as I don't think the guy is cheating then I'm never ever even gonna mention the card going off the table or asking for his hand to be dead.

Depends on House Rules.

Common Sense should prevail, if the card that flew off was easily identified then it should play, but if it came off the table under the table (where a card could possibly be switched etc) then dead.

Cash

Different animal,

Hand could be declared dead.

But when he did hissy fit show the card hit the dealers hand

then asked to leave said cardroom.

BTW if it was all-in pre the dealer shouldn't have dealt the board until the offending player had already tabled his cards.