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

[gatso]

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

that`s what I`d assumed. can`t find anything relating to this situation in tda rules either though. anyone else?

[Cf]

Will quote the rule when I get home. TDA prob don't cover it explicitly - they're usually tournament specific rules. Just refer to rrs for other rules. The two sets complement each other without any major contradictions.

For those saying there should be standardised rules... There are. TDA/RR. Just tell grosvenor etc to actually follow them.

[The Baron]

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.

OK then, say I follow your advice and learn the rules.

I find a poker rule book that's one of the ones that doesn't say something along these lines (not that the above states anything about my hand being mucked, it just says I lose the right to act, which could mean no aggressive action).  I guess it's my fault now for reading the wrong book?  Perhaps there should be a rule book on which rule book we should all read first!

The fallacy of trying to learn rules in poker is that no two places uses the same version, and no-one knows which rules are in use anywhere until a particular issue crops up.  Another good example of this is the 'what's the minimum raise?' debates we've had on here previously.

At least it all generates good material for debate!  

Every "accepted" Poker Rule Book takes the same line on this issue, Curtis. And always has done, or at least in my time in the game.

I think you're right, every accepted rule book does have a rule like that.

In particular the part at the end, "... may cause you the lose the right to act."

"may cause" not "will cause" - in other words it's a rule which is deliberately and correctly left open for the interpretation of the TD. If it gets that far, the TD should be applying common sense as to whether it's an angle shoot or just a player being caught out by other people's mistakes.

Bingo. If this is the rule (which is ambiguous in it's wording so it's clearly not black and white anyway) then so be it, but the TD surely has to use common sense here?

[geordieneil]

my thoughts. FWIW

i can safely say the masses agree the ruling wasn't wrong its just its a bad rule, its very exploitable and just WRONG an innocent party suffers no matter who's mistake it was players/dealer/td/whoever.....

   now poker is apparently THE most played game in the world, billions of pounds are ploughed into this industry and it is not even properly regulated. now if FIFA in football seen a rule that just wasn't right the next season they would change it, its in the interest of their sport/game......so ffs somebody with a bit of influence in the poker world start a governing body....grosvenor, gala, stanleys etc etc etc...may well be stubborn with their rules at present, but if a governing body like FIFA, UEFA, THE FA in football was started in the poker world, the casino's wouldn't really have a say and would back down eventually as players will vote with their feet if a venue wasn't playing to "set in stone fair rules" made by "a governing body" surely this is the next step for poker to continue moving forward.....Tikay has repeated a few times in this thread that this rule has been around for years.....this is the point, a bad rule has been in effect for years and nobody has done anything to change the rule to suit the interests/integrity of the game.
   the amount of arguments i have seen at tables because of mistunderstanding of rules either by the player or the cardroom staff is countless, these frequent disagreements would reduce massively if the rules were policed better and surely that's got to be in the interests of the game. TDA rules are there but tbf they are very unclear, hence the difference in opinions and rules from cardroom to cardroom.

 poker has got to move on and stop living in the dark ages


rant over

[gatso]

my tuppence worth. FWIW

why put FWIW when youve already told us what it`s worth?

[thetank]

my tuppence worth. FWIW

why put FWIW when youve already told us what it`s worth?

A tuppence can vary in value depending on whether or not you're in the film Mary Poppins.

[gatso]

my tuppence worth. FWIW

why put FWIW when youve already told us what it`s worth?

A tuppence can vary in value depending on whether or not you're in the film Mary Poppins.

admittedly it was claimed that it would increase in value if invested. however inflation was never accounted for so I don`t feel we ever knew if the real value would increase although if the bird woman kept her prices the same I guess we could buy more bags of breadcrumbs

[Cf]

12. 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. You cannot forfeit your right to act if any player in front of you has not acted, only if you fail to act when it legally becomes your turn. Therefore, if you wait for someone whose turn comes before you, and three or more players act behind you, this still does not hinder your right to act.

The key word here is "may". The above rule could maybe do with an example to illustrate the point. But I do believe DTD have misapplied the rule here. The word may implies that the hand will not always be dead. The situation in the OP is one such scenario imo.

(For the sake of simplicity i'm using right to act/dead hand interchangibly. If you don't have a right to act on your hand then your hand is dead)

[doubleup]

"May lose the right to act" and "have their hand declared dead" are entirely different things.  The writer of the rule understands what both things mean and decided to use the former phrase.  

It is quite obvious to me that the purpose of this rule is to stop someone gaining information or advantage from out of turn actions.  In this case the advantage gained was the information of the players checking.  Therefore OP should not have been allowed to bet had everyone checked.  However, that didn't happen and the pre-flop raiser bet, so there has been no advantage gained and the hand should proceed as usual.

I really can't understand how the above is in any way a difficult concept.

[thetank]

I think the bird woman would be slow to increase her prices because on such a cheap item, an increase of magnitude equal to 1x the smallest possible unit of currency would still represent a significant % increase on a bag of feed (plus she'd have to come up with a new song.)

She could start putting less feed in the bags I suppose. That might work

[gatso]

what makes us even think that dtd use RR?

if they don`t then you may as well quote verses from the bible and expect them to rule based on that

if they do then the ruling is clearly horrific

[gatso]

I think the bird woman would be slow to increase her prices because on such a cheap item, an increase of magnitude equal to 1x the smallest possible unit of currency would still represent a significant % increase on a bag of feed (plus she'd have to come up with a new song.)

She could start putting less feed in the bags I suppose. That might work

yeah, pretty sure that`s what happened with the whole wagon wheels getting smaller thing

[Cf]

what makes us even think that dtd use RR?

if they don`t then you may as well quote verses from the bible and expect them to rule based on that

if they do then the ruling is clearly horrific

They use TDA which isn't extensive enough on its own to cover everything. I'm assuming they use RR for everything else - presumably their rulings aren't plucked from thin air and are based on something. And all rulings I've seen them give are consistent with RRs.

[thetank]

I think the bird woman would be slow to increase her prices because on such a cheap item, an increase of magnitude equal to 1x the smallest possible unit of currency would still represent a significant % increase on a bag of feed (plus she'd have to come up with a new song.)

She could start putting less feed in the bags I suppose. That might work

yeah, pretty sure that`s what happened with the whole wagon wheels getting smaller thing

Was getting Molly a 20p mix up the other day and remember thinking that the 1p sweets looked a lot smaller than when I were 'lad.
Put it down to me just being bigger now and so the sweeties just seem smaller. Seems I'm very wrong, just didn't think about it all that deeply.

I can't blame the sweetie people, inflation is what it is. So I wonder how small 1p sweets will get in my lifetime? Will I live to see the day that they're taken off the shelves (even in Scottish sweet shops) altogether?

[Claw75]

please stop posting in blue cf - I can't read your posts without highlighting them first and it's it's a pain the arse