To be or not to be: Rulings

[dik9]

Tout de suite

[spacefrog]

spacefrog is viewing. What does spacefrog think?

Many things ami, some you like some no is bad. Today is sad Spacefrog, I make a work in Belgium.

[celtic]

and there you have it.

End thread.

[Royal Flush]

I should make it clear, i believe Steve to have a lapse of judgement rather than being a malicious angle shooter.

[dik9]

I should make it clear, i believe Steve to have a lapse of judgement rather than being a malicious angle shooter.

I understand, but insistence of a rule that he thinks/knows is wrong, to prove a point at the expense of another players comp is bad form. I understand the point making, make the point then leave it IMO. Don't insist the rule to be upheld, it's not really in the spirit of the game. I would suspect the meeting regarding speech play would have taken place anyway after the comp. I also stress that in the situations described ( as I wasn't there) that they are both slightly different scenarios.

Maybe saying angle shooting is the wrong phrase - I apologize- but imposing a bad rule that favours you is just wrong.

[AlexMartin]

I read the op, whatever happened to poker being played in the spirit of the game, whenever we fk about in luton we make it a priority to have a laugh 1st, then try and make some money. Id like to think that even if a ridiculous ruling was made, players would not try and deliberately take advantage of it and try to angle-shoot each other, the games is hard enough as it is without ppl being malicious. OP, sounds like you had a moment of madness imo.

[nirvana]

Don't know about rights, wrongs & rulings but the behaviour is just pathetic

[DaveShoelace]

I read the op, whatever happened to poker being played in the spirit of the game, whenever we fk about in luton we make it a priority to have a laugh 1st, then try and make some money. Id like to think that even if a ridiculous ruling was made, players would not try and deliberately take advantage of it and try to angle-shoot each other, the games is hard enough as it is without ppl being malicious. OP, sounds like you had a moment of madness imo.

Agreed, not only should the TD be able to make final decisions with common sense ruling the day, I think the players have the responsibility to do the same and make the game enjoyable for the greater good of the game.

I know that for many people (OP included I presume) that live tournament poker is a job and they might think things like this give them an edge, but its still a job were you need to be professional and for me this isn't. If this 'Juicy' chap (Would love to know the origin of that nickname btw) is the nice friendly, possibly fishy, player that he sounds, then its something like this that might put him off playing in future events and do his money at blackjack instead - long term its bad for the game and a circuit pros win rate.

I personally would hate to win a tournament knowing that my knowledge of the rules perhaps played a bigger part than my ability to play. At least this second incident will almost surely clarify the rules for all in future events.

[avillan]

if you agree that the ruling was crazy then [/why did you insist that it was enforced in your hand?quote]

The crazy part about the ruling was that priyan had responded to a gesture - not a verbal, I dont know how that can be binding. so by simply looking at the chips in front of you and a player seeing you "thinking" about an amount responds "dont do it - I'll call you" is binding? no amount has been discussed - it cant be binding.

Jewsy was aware of the ruling, he was on both tables when the conversation had taken place.
He responded to a verbal that there would definitely be a raise and he said he would call, when asked  "if I go all in - you call?" he says "I will call you". I said "you can call for a ruling if you like but you have to call now" this was before he mucked.
There was nothing ambiguous at any time here and the ruling was a clear cut one.

why did you insist that it was enforced in your hand? Are rules optional now?

Posted by: Royal Flush 
Insert Quote
Steve i didn't speak my mind at the time under advice from others and also because i think you are a nice guy, and even more so because Juicy decided to let it go but what i thought you did was the scummiest trick i have seen at a poker table in my life.

Everyone in the tournament was talking about how bad the ruling was in the main event and you obviously just sat there thinking of a way to use it, as it happened you picked on a really nice friendly chatty player, he is pretty clueless when it comes to poker but is one of the nicest guys to have on a table as he is always up for banter/table talk. You took advantage of him and its disgusting.

If it had been me you did that on i would have gone apeshit, i don't mind people beating me but people beating me dirty is just not on.

b]you obviously just sat there thinking of a way to use it[/b] LOL, I got nothing better to do flushy.

I was already aware of the verbal rule and I had no problems with the understanding of it, I didn't take advantage of anyone - I asked "if I go all in - you call?" he says "I will call you" - great, I found out where I stand, if he's sitting there with aces then he's trapped me.


If it had been me you did that on i would have gone apeshit, i don't mind people beating me but people beating me dirty is just not on If it had been you on my bb in that situation do you think it would have been any different?

Posted on: Today at 02:02:07 AMPosted by: dik9 
Insert Quote
Apeshit lol, I would have twatted him LOL

Seriously though, I would expect the TD to issue a warning for trying to throw an angle in the second scenario -
so where was the angle, as i said - if he's sitting there with aces then he's trapped me or I trapped myself

Quote from: AlexMartin on Today at 07:14:26 AM
I personally would hate to win a tournament knowing that my knowledge of the rules perhaps played a bigger part than my ability to play. At least this second incident will almost surely clarify the rules for all in future events.
So why dont we change the rules to say that a boat is bigger than quads - rules are there for a reason - it gives you all a level playing field. The only thing that isnt level is peoples interpretation of the rules.


 

[JungleCat03]

This is as obvious an example of angle-shooting as i've ever seen.

Just because you took advantage of a technicality in the rules that made your play valid, it doesn't change the fact it is angle-shooting.

Just as in this scenario.

You make a raise, someone says "this is it" and shoves what seems to be all their chips into the middle and you call and show your hand. They then reveal they had a single chip back and you are now penalised for exposing your hand.

Technically within the rules at a lot of places. But angle-shooting.

When I first started playing poker live, a lot of the seasoned veterans pulled moves like this all the time on the newbies like me. At first it was intimidating since I always felt you never knew what crock of shit local rule they were going to pull on you next.

Now I realise a lot of these players were just rubbish at poker and needed the edges to stop themselves going busto.

Don't pulll stunts like this. Even if you think it will benefit you on a particular hand, realise that most players will look very unfavourably at you for doing this and it will cause you more trouble in the long term than it's worth.

[maldini32]

When i read the updates for the priyan hand i thought frazer et al were taking the piss and now this is just as bad. In both situations both Frazer and avillan knew exacty what they were doing and wanted some free chips. This is cheating whichever way you wanna paint the picture and it really pisses me off more than anything in poker.

[dino1980]

The £250 F/O starts and I am on a table with a local player called Parvis (I think the locals call him Jewsy), there is a lot of talk on the table about how ridiculous the ruling was, I got moved onto James Browning table also on there was Ian Cox, Jewsy was moved onto the table with me when our table was broken up. The conversations about this ruling were the general topic of conversation on here as well.
 

Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of the rulings made in Brighton...

Everyone is critiscising Steve here and obv I wasn't there, but it seems Juicy was well aware of the ruling that had been made just hours earlier? If so then to me he's just as culpable in saying 'I will call you if you go all-in' or words to that effect.

[phatomch]

grosvenor made this rule before i left in SEPT 07, the rule is a verbal statement out of turn is binding unless the action has changed i.e someone has re-raised the original all in.

this has gone in all grosvenor's for over a year, but have they followed it ?  i think not...

[LLevan]

Knowingly trying to benefit from what was generally considered a bad ruling a couple of hours later is very poor etiquette IMO. However Juicy's talking was stupid but to say you think he might have trapped you with aces is no defence either IMO.
Professional circuit players should be an example to the hobby players if they don't want to drive the hobby players out of the game. From reading the updates last week it appears that the amount of dead money(save for Albert) is rapidly diminishing from the GUKPT and it will only be the few sponsored players that will survive in the long term if seasoned professionals act in this manner.

[ariston]

Same as other ruling- was correct and rules are rules- if it had been called at the time. Its not just grosvenor that enforces a verbal action is binding even out of turn. If you play a WPT etc you will find the same applies just players dont say daft things and other players dont try and takeadvantage or angle shoot.

Saying I will call you whatever you bet so shortly after the previous ruling is a very stupid thing to do. The OP is a c**t imo for allowing the player to fold and then trying to claim his chips. If he wants to stick to the rules he should have made sure his hand wasn't folded by calling for a ruling before pushing allin which is what frazer did. In this case at least the guy gets to play the pot out and he may actually still win the pot. By allowing the player to fold then asking for a ruling afterwards it meant he avoided the risk of an outdraw which is just plain angle shooting.

imo (and poker is a game of opinions) the rules should have been interpreted differently in this situation and the player should've kept his chips and been warned about future comments. The OP should have been informed to get rulings before the players has a chance to muck if he wanted to angle shoot (yes as TD I would've made it clear I thought he was angle shooting and would have told him how to do it "properly"). Once the next hand has been played then a ruling cannot be made on any previous hands (another one of Grosvenors rules) and I would have used this rule to over rule the "verbal actions are binding" rule.

OP is a dog
other guy is a fool for making such a stupid comment.

rule doesnt need taking out at the next rules meeting it just needs modifying/clarifying. Table banter should be allowed but I seem to be one of the only ones who thinks an actual verbal declaration should be binding. If you say "you bet and I will call" you are trying to stop the other person betting. If they bet you should have to call.