To be or not to be: Rulings

[action man]

steve had a moment of madness here. Its very bad form imo, and surprised me a little cus steve's a cracking chap.

[easypickings]

Whilst I have to agree this was the wrong thing to do, I think Steve is being villified far more than he deserves. Everyone should be allowed one mistake, especially if before this they have always been a very friendly and decent character like Steve has.

This was a lapse of judgement, but it was definitely not malicious. There had been alot of frustration in the air at a bizarre and unfair ruling that afternoon, and Steve's action was not born out of thinking "great, what can I get out of this for myself?" but of out frustration for such an illogical ruling.

It is a day of events that the TD and team should never have allowed to happen. Even though it is a ridiculous ruling, I am still much more concerned by the events if the ruling against Priyan technically was right. If it was, then it brings up the following questions:

- Why has it never come up before, if it has been the correct ruling since September, 2007? I can think of a number of occassions since then when the same ruling should have come up.
- Why this sudden decision to clamp down on the rule? Why were the players not warned?
-Why did the dealers seem to know nothing about it, or be prepared to react to it?

[owen1923]

Got to admit I think the initial ruling was appalling, but the setting up of this other kid was worse.

From the events as described, the guy had not made a call out of turn, his speech was to villain, there was nothing in this which should have been binding in any way.

Pretty Scummy move IMO.

[tonysaint]

Personally, I think this is going to hurt Guinness sales badly - there is a recession on and I feel for the casinos losing an important revenue stream... on the plus side I guess I will lose some weight and get told to shut up less. God it will be so boring.

A bit like guinness, and a little more seriously :
(1) rules have to be black and white
(2) if a rule cannot be black and white, dont try to have the rule

P.S. I like Steve, like Juicy, like what GUKPT has been built up into by Bluesq guys involved....hope all can move on...

[AlrightJack]

I'd like to re-iterate that we will be discussing this issue internally before the next GUKPT event and will clarify the situation regarding this kind of speech play before then.

As an aside, the TDA rules (not the Grosvenor/GUKPT ones) describe excessive chatter as unethical play and states that players who indulge in it may have penalties imposed upon them. Paul Parker should be very very afraid.

[Cf]

I really don't see what there is to clarify.

The original ruling was awful and completely wrong. I'd love to know what was going through the TDs mind and the time and which specific rule he applied to make the ruling.

[AlrightJack]

I really don't see what there is to clarify.

The original ruling was awful and completely wrong. I'd love to know what was going through the TDs mind and the time and which specific rule he applied to make the ruling.

The rules regarding what goes and what doesn't need to be clarified with regards to certain kinds of speech play.  It is important that players know this in advance of the next event. As I have said before on another thread, it is the rules that need to be looked at, not this particular ruling. The ruling was made and stood, but it is the rules regarding all verbals going and out of turn actions standing that resulted in the ruling being made in this way. It is important for the good of the game going forward that everyone taking part in the tour knows  the rules and how are interpreted with regard to conditional statements of intent. That is why it needs to be clarified.

My personal point of view is that conditional out of turn statements should not be binding. However, I also beleive that asking an opponent what they are going to do if a certain course of action is taken (e.g will you call if I bet?) or volunteering the information out of turn (i.e that one intends to call if a bet is made), is unethical and repeated violators should be punished. I'm in favour of banter, but keep it within certain boundaries. My personal views are not neccessarily the views of everyone at Grosvenor but we all agree that it needs to be clarified for the good of the game.

[action man]

to say whether the rule is a good rule or a bad rule is simple. If the hardcore circuit players think its a bad rule its a bad rule. They are the players who play the circuit events week in week out. When has it become a person who doesnt play poker at all's decision on what rules the players who pay the juice play by?

we should get a union of 200 players who play more than 10 festival events a year and draw up our own interpreation of each rule by voting and then send it to grosvenor and bsq and say these are what the players want to adhere to. If not then we wont be there.

[totalise]

OP sounds like a shitbag and this rule sounds like the biggest joke ever

I'd like to see this enforced on an internet scale though, just for the hilarity

"if you call and suck out im gonna kill your family"

and such statements would be hard, but amusing,  to enforce

[doubleup]

If not then we wont be there.

rofl

[AlrightJack]

Not sure who you are refering to rick. Most of the people who work on the tour also play the game. It is the house's job to run the game, not the players, but of course the player's opinions are taken into consideration. We are not here to run things in an obtuse way just for the sake of it. If things are not right, we seek to put them right.

[Royal Flush]

OP sounds like a shitbag and this rule sounds like the biggest joke ever

I'd like to see this enforced on an internet scale though, just for the hilarity

"if you call and suck out im gonna kill your family"

and such statements would be hard, but amusing,  to enforce

'If you go all in i am going to shag Angelina Jolie'

Plz make that binding!

[vinni]

this happened to me at blackpool a few years ago .
i hit trip on the flop against mick Fletcher ,he had 2 diamonds,
i said something like don't re raise so he just called .
turn comes another diamond,
i bet and tell him not to re raise as i will call any bet ,
he moves all in i have to call as iv made a verbal declaration ,theres no moaning no screaming .
i don't see why it has to be changed ,
when some one says there going to call no matter what ,they have to call end of .
this is not table banter ,its a verbal call .
all you lot what are calling Steve probably don't know him .
hes a genuine bloke who's trying to earn a living from poker ,its not his game to cheat ( which you lot are implying).

john while were on about Brighton can you enlighten me please on the Paul king situation in the satellite for the main event.
this is Paul's story ; 6 players left 4 seats 5 gets £525 .
5 players ask Paul if he wants to do a deal he says no because he is the chip leader .
the other 5 then decide to do a deal without Paul ,he then asked Ian if this was allowed ,Ian then says he is having nothing to do with it ,this is the TD for the main event .
i have never heard of there being a deal when 1 player is against it .
i know that bl sq does not have anything to do with deals ,but surely there cant allow anything when one player declines this.
BTW I'm not slagging you or anything to do with the gukpt off .
i thing this is the best thing that happened to poker in the UK.

                                                            thx
                                                                  Barry.

[vinni]

btw well done on your award john 

[vinni]

flushy do you mean Ben aflick .