The worst ruling I have ever seen and it's me who has to be the victim

[Sack it off]

FWIW I wasn't wearing sunglasses or headphones lol

[doubleup]

I've said I've seen this exact rule applied at DTD and other UK card-rooms,

I have played poker all over the world and I have never seen this ruling applied or seen a written rule that would support this ruling.

I have seen (preflop) someone facing a bet having their hand killed.

[TightEnd]

I've said I've seen this exact rule applied at DTD and other UK card-rooms,

I have played poker all over the world and I have never seen this ruling applied or seen a written rule that would support this ruling.

I have seen (preflop) someone facing a bet having their hand killed.

fine. I have seen it applied in the UK both here and elsewhere (Luton, Walsall being two and I was on the table for both rulings). This is what led me to refer to is as "standard", probably incorrectly it seems!

[gatso]

rich, have you def seen it applied when penalised player could have checked rather than when facing a bet

[TightEnd]

rich, have you def seen it applied when penalised player could have checked rather than when facing a bet

Couldn't say, to be frank. I get the distinction, too.

[Sack it off]

After much thought I think the correct ruling should be that my bet is now classed as a call, because there were no players left to act between the bettor and I, so if my action was taken as a check, and the bet was 400 and I have thrown a 500 chip in without verbally announcing anything then it should be a call.

I'm still really upset with the ruling and feel a bit let down by DTD as I would always trust them to make the correct ruling and ALWAYS have logic behind it.

It's a real shame that this event taken away that view that DTD is a "fortress" of poker and is now very much like every other cardroom, I know alot of others feel the same.

[kinboshi]

If the OP vehemently stated that he checked UTG, then he gets all his options, right? The dealer says he didn't see him check, but the OP can say that the dealer must gave seen him check otherwise why did he allow the play to continue round the table?

So to counter this rule you can lie, and possibly angle shoot?

Doesn't that make the rule a bad one?

[doubleup]

Doesn't that make the rule a bad one?

pls stop using that word - there was a ruling, there is no rule.

[MANTIS01]

Despite the actual ruling I think dealers should get a hard time over this sort of thing. You pay juice to the casino to facilitate your playing of the game. The responsibility should lie with dealers/casino to provide the framework so you can just relax and play that game. If you're contemplating a decision you shouldn't be tasked with marshalling the game as well. It isn't at all hard for a dealer to control the action. You hold your outstretched hand towards the player acting and hold it there until the player acts, then you announce the action before moving your hand to the next player in a clockwise rotation. If somebody acts out of turn you shout what the feck at them before returning with a smile to the original player. That is not a hard accomplishment and I think it's service you'd reasonably expect to be delivered during a game.

[leethefish]

i dont post very often but read forum everyday!!!
 but i feel i have to put my opionion on this subject......... in my humble oppinion this is where our country has a total LACK OF COMMON SENSE
WHY  can the dealers and t/d see that there was no angle shooting in this instance.
the DEALER SHOULD KEEP UP WITH THE ACTION and anounce check check then the player in sb would have looked up and said hang on i havent acted yet
had he sat and watched everyone check then bet 400 then yes the ruling is correct or had he had his hood up and headphones on and not payed attention to the action rulling would be correct
COMMON SENSE thats all it is
and had this happen at my local casino you expect it but its no good stating a rule that has been inforced by somone because it is not black and white rule
its one that should be applied thru COMMON SENSE

[TightPaulFolds]

This is not dealer's fault.

If you want to lead your set then either a) say something like 'I bet' or b) take notice of people checking around you and say 'hold on' or something.

AndrewT gets it right, as per usual. It's a pretty standard rule, IMO.

It goes against the grain that someone wholly innocent should be punished for the errors of others, & I got pretty cross when it happened to me in a biggish (£750) Comp, & my hand was voided.

The point was made that if I were paying attention, the moment the first geezer, to my immediate left, folded out of turn, I should have given it the "whoa, hold up".

The OP is not an angle-shooter, & nor am I, but you can see WHY the Rule is in place. Knowing what I know now, I would have "stopped" the Action the moment the first player acted out of turn.

The ruling, imo, is correct, though the Rule may be wrong.

As is so often the case with these threads, if the players were to pay proper attention, it would not happen. It's too easy to blame others - usually the Dealer - for everything.

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

Which only seves to muddy the waters further, really.

Best to pay attention, then it can't happen, either the Ruling, or the argument which inevitably follows.

Tikay if you look at your stack to bet and two people tap the table how are you sposed to know they've checked??? Keep looking up from your stack and back at the players? Surely the player who is getting ready is being punished for others not paying attention?

Take yer hoodie off, earphones out, & shades off. Things become much clearer then.

Fair point.

A lot nicer though when you have active dealers who control the action, with one finger pointing at the player to act in turn, this kind of thing then a lot less likely to happen. The dealer also verbally echoes the players action, the player can get on with his thinking/counting without having to monitor the guy 3 to his left, in case he's missed a bunch of accidental action.

Yes, much nicer.

But that does not mean they are wholly to blame. Poker players, eventually, are going to have to accept the notion that there are some things in poker for which they must accept partial responsibility.

Agreed. I just don't think management of the flow of table action is one of them.

Apart from that, everything Mantis said.

And sack all dealers and get these instead, prob solved.

[kinboshi]

Doesn't that make the rule a bad one?

pls stop using that word - there was a ruling, there is no rule.

My mistake, I thought the ruling was being made off the back of a rule.  If there's no rule, that makes the ruling even harder to agree with imo.

[Rod]

Doesn't that make the rule a bad one?

pls stop using that word - there was a ruling, there is no rule.

My mistake, I thought the ruling was being made off the back of a rule.  If there's no rule, that makes the ruling even harder to agree with imo.

I a confused. I thought there was a rule? Although I believe in this case common sense should have applied. 

If there is not a rule then this ruling is very unfair on the OP. f there is a rule I can at least see we DtD is coming from, even if I don't agree with it.

What is the actual rule in this circumstance, I was sure that the rule mentioned earlier in the thread about three people taking action was correct. Are we saying the correct application of this rule is that the OP should have not been able to make any aggressive action on this betting round and can therefore only call the bet.

[doubleup]

Doesn't that make the rule a bad one?

pls stop using that word - there was a ruling, there is no rule.

My mistake, I thought the ruling was being made off the back of a rule.  If there's no rule, that makes the ruling even harder to agree with imo.

There has been some speculation about what the rule could be - OP was not advised of the relevant rule, Gatso couldn't find the rule on their website and DtD while maintaning that their ruling was correct have not disclosed the rule on which it was based.

 

[outragous76]

from my previous a few weeks ago i was told they defer to TDA rules