p12yan
Probation
Offline
Posts: 4
|
|
« Reply #240 on: January 17, 2009, 11:51:11 PM » |
|
So if you were me. you think what Iwan did was correct and you would be happy?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NoflopsHomer
|
|
« Reply #241 on: January 17, 2009, 11:51:30 PM » |
|
Matt Perrins raises preflop and James Sudworth calls. (Think it was 27kish) Perrins bets 29k. Dwell...and call. Perrins thinks for a minute and checks. Sudworth fires out 60k. Perrins doesn't fold instantly, he thinks for a couple of minutes and I really feel for a moment he's going to push all-in for another 160k on top which might get Sudworth off the hand...but he folds. He's down to about 220k, Sudworth up to 350k On the other table, Richard Lewindon pushes from the button and takes the blinds.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
p12yan
Probation
Offline
Posts: 4
|
|
« Reply #242 on: January 17, 2009, 11:54:08 PM » |
|
With regard to the controversial hand anyone at the table can call for a ruling, Iwan ventured an opinion (which in his own words maybe he didn't need to) that he agreed with Ian but that the only way they could solve it was to call for a ruling. Nothing wrong with that otherwise you have the potential for it to develop into a stand up argument. The ruling itself i personally think is a bit shit but Frazer took full advantage of it as it was recounted to me. Apparently he picked up 12k to bet the river as he did this Priyan picked up the same amount to call, Frazer didn't put the chips over the line and stopped and looked at Priyan, it was then that he made his statement. The ruling was called and now Frazer moves in for a massive overbet (37k?). Priyan left himself open to it but pretty gross use of the situation by Frazer as he now trebled his bet.
So Dave, if you were me you would be happy with Iwan getting invovled?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bovie
|
|
« Reply #243 on: January 17, 2009, 11:54:30 PM » |
|
Prian just ask for your money back,im sure the casino will help,if not try Iwan or maybe Ian...........lolllll
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aidenson
|
|
« Reply #244 on: January 17, 2009, 11:57:22 PM » |
|
Ok as an ex cardroom supervisor at Walsall i know some of the Grosvenor rules are a little shitty. All talk goes whether its the truth or not which itself opens up to lots of arguments but basically if someone says they are going to call even if no one has bet yet then they have to call. We had 1 incident where it really kicked off.....a guy puts a small bet in on the turn ...the next guy is thinking when the bettor says "if you re raise me i shall pass" ... the guy then rerasies ...the original bettor then moved all-in supervisor was called and the guy was made to pass...as he had stone cold nuts he was a little pissed off but basically the answer is say nothing I accept that a bit of banter is part of the game but a lot of people have been playing long enough to just keep quiet and play the game
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NoflopsHomer
|
|
« Reply #245 on: January 17, 2009, 11:58:36 PM » |
|
Richard Lewindon moves all-in on Nicholas Holbrook's big blind for 99k but Craig Brignall can't bring himself to call off his stack in the small blind. A couple of hands later and Brignall moves on Lewidon's big blind. Touche. Lewindon, "I've got crap, but it might better than your crap." Lewindon folds what he says was K-7.
|
|
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 12:00:33 AM by NoflopsHomer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gasman
|
|
« Reply #246 on: January 17, 2009, 11:59:49 PM » |
|
come on ramseyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
riverdave
|
|
« Reply #247 on: January 18, 2009, 12:02:18 AM » |
|
So if you were me. you think what Iwan did was correct and you would be happy?
Try if you can to ignore the fact that a pretty shit ruling has been made here, i don't think you can be enforced to call an unquantifiable amount. I've seen it many times where there are 5 minute arguments at the table and nobody thinks to call the floor as that is almost ineveitably the only way to solve it. It's annoying and a complete waste of time. If Iwan's involvement was just to defuse and speed up the process he's acted correctly and sensibly and couldn't find any fault with him. I'd be more peeved with Frazer if he completely took advantage of the situation and changed the amount he was going to bet. Not that he broke any rules by doing that it just isn't great form.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
riverdave
|
|
« Reply #248 on: January 18, 2009, 12:07:34 AM » |
|
Shipppppit Ramsey
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
riverdave
|
|
« Reply #250 on: January 18, 2009, 12:11:33 AM » |
|
Even if the ruling is right by the rules it's a terrible one and needs to be changed.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aidenson
|
|
« Reply #251 on: January 18, 2009, 12:12:59 AM » |
|
Even if the ruling is right by the rules it's a terrible one and needs to be changed.
Absolutely
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NoflopsHomer
|
|
« Reply #252 on: January 18, 2009, 12:14:58 AM » |
|
Still waiting for the deadlock to be broken.
On Nicholas Holbrook's table, all the other stacks are fairly short now and each looking for spots to push, whereas on the other table James Sudworth and Ramsey Ajram in particular are really battling out trying to grab as many chips as they can. Bernard Litman is sitting back a bit while Matt Perrins and Andreas Hoivold as still raising but not as aggressively as before.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
George2Loose
|
|
« Reply #253 on: January 18, 2009, 12:17:03 AM » |
|
weeeeeeeeeeeeee shipppppppppppppp
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ole Ole Ole Ole!
|
|
|
4thstreet
Probation
Offline
Posts: 5
|
|
« Reply #254 on: January 18, 2009, 12:17:49 AM » |
|
It is an appalling decision.
typical of the goons who get put in positions of power having done no courses/training whatsoever. Only learn the rules from their bosses, who 70% of the time make up the ruling anyway.
In what other industry would a decision of such financial magnitude be left to someone who hasn't even taken a course in the subject he was proclaiming to be an expert in?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|