DTD Ruling at request of Simon Trumper

[outragous76]

if I had KK on that board (face down) facing that action I would check the turn allowing my opponent to bluff on the river (and catch up if im behind)

[TightEnd]

I'm confused Guy....you are making assumptions about what the player might or might do face down/face up..the assumptions may be valid or may be completely wrong


I personally prefer the no aggressive action rule, but as long as DTD apply the "all options open" line every time then I don't see the problem as this thread is beginning to prove trying to infer whether a player is angle shooting/making a mistake/is getting an advantage or isn't is a minefield for a TD.

If a venue goes with "all options option" then a one orbit penalty seems fair to me as again, impossible to have to rule mistake or angle shoot.

[gatso]

this thread is now turning into comedy gold

[mondatoo]

I agree if you leave all options open then a one orbit penalty should be given.

[outragous76]

I'm confused Guy....you are making assumptions about what the player might or might do face down/face up..the assumptions may be valid or may be completely wrong


I personally prefer the no aggressive action rule, but as long as DTD apply the "all options open" line every time then I don't see the problem as this thread is beginning to prove trying to infer whether a player is angle shooting/making a mistake/is getting an advantage or isn't is a minefield for a TD.

If a venue goes with "all options option" then a one orbit penalty seems fair to me as again, impossible to have to rule mistake or angle shoot.

i was asked to give an example, how on earth can i do that without making assumptions?

Im sure some poker minds could come up with a better example

Im just surprised that despite 90% of people initially saying that they think it should be no aggresive action, now think its fine he can still act.

I guess the rule will stand - ill be flipping cards for fun in a DTD card room near you shortly (obv not!)

[Bongo]

Would a better example be one where the opponent was disadvantaged by seeing the cards and not by a difference in the betting?

[kinboshi]

I'm confused Guy....you are making assumptions about what the player might or might do face down/face up..the assumptions may be valid or may be completely wrong


I personally prefer the no aggressive action rule, but as long as DTD apply the "all options open" line every time then I don't see the problem as this thread is beginning to prove trying to infer whether a player is angle shooting/making a mistake/is getting an advantage or isn't is a minefield for a TD.

If a venue goes with "all options option" then a one orbit penalty seems fair to me as again, impossible to have to rule mistake or angle shoot.

i was asked to give an example, how on earth can i do that without making assumptions?

Im sure some poker minds could come up with a better example

Im just surprised that despite 90% of people initially saying that they think it should be no aggresive action, now think its fine he can still act.

I guess the rule will stand - ill be flipping cards for fun in a DTD card room near you shortly (obv not!)

If the dealer/TD thinks the cards were exposed deliberately, isn't there a different penalty to one applied to someone who is deemed to have done it by mistake?

[TightEnd]

No, as I understand it. The problem being establishing motive is subjective.

[kinboshi]

No, as I understand it. The problem being establishing motive is subjective.

Incident at the Irish Poker thing I played last year (or was it the year before, I forget) in Dublin.

Drunk, loud-mouthed player on my table has been berating players and generally been an idiot.  During one hand he's heads up and on the river the other player makes a large bet.  He thinks for a while, and then flips his cards over saying "what do you reckon, should I call?" - obviously trying to get information from the other player (and possibly others round the table).  The floor was called, and after it was established that it wasn't an unintentional act, his hand was declared dead and he was given a 10-minute (or one orbit, can't actually remember now) penalty - which was more than fair imo.

So in this case, if it was at DTD there wouldn't be a different penalty imposed to what has been stated above for an unintentional (or difficult to ascertain) exposure of a player's cards during a hand.  Surely up to the discretion of the TD?

[titaniumbean]

10 minute orbit live?!

were you playing 3 handed?!?!

[celtic]

Two guys in a hand at Luton earlier this year.

Betting pre, on the flop, turn and river. As player B is considering whether to call or fold. Player A who has been making all the betting turns over one card. A card that doesn't relate to the board. Think it was the . Board was 4 diamonds and a club i think.

What would the ruling be?

[tikay]

Two guys in a hand at Luton earlier this year.

Betting pre, on the flop, turn and river. As player B is considering whether to call or fold. Player A who has been making all the betting turns over one card. A card that doesn't relate to the board. Think it was the . Board was 4 diamonds and a club i think.

What would the ruling be?

Depends. Which night of the week was it?

[StuartHopkin]

Sigh

Just wasted an orbit of my life reading this thread

Please change title to 'questioning perfectly sensible dtd rulings for no good reason - tl;dr'

Thx

[outragous76]

Sigh

Just wasted an orbit of my life reading this thread

Please change title to 'questioning perfectly sensible dtd rulings for no good reason - tl;dr'

Thx

welcome back

[StuartHopkin]

Sigh

Just wasted an orbit of my life reading this thread

Please change title to 'questioning perfectly sensible dtd rulings for no good reason - tl;dr'

Thx

welcome back