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

[snoopy1239]

youre comparing apples and pears george. Vegas attracts smart dealers who mostly play the game, dtd attracts mostly local semi attractive skanks from the estate that dont have a brain, obv there gonna miss loads of stuff, whose gonna want to deal in front of leering blokes and listen to "four king ten" haha everynight for
close to min wage.

What a rude post. So insulting to decent people who are trying to earn a living.

You kidding? Wish I was semi attractive.

[gatso]

My 10 cents:

It's a bad rule, not a bad ruling.

you may be right but do we know what the rule is? if it's similar to what cf posted i.e. you may lose the right to act or your hand may be declared dead then the rule is probs fine while the ruling is bad

[EvilPie]

I've heard of this rule pre flop when people fold out of turn but after the flop seems ridiculous.

I think it's a mistake by the TD who was enforcing the pre flop rule. If it's not a mistake it's a rule that should be looked at and changed imo.

[MANTIS01]

But also to OP: keep your eye on the table and don't allow three people to act out of turn after you. Protect your own interests and tell them to stop.

What if you tell them to stop and they don't? If the rule is the player must stop the action the player should be allowed to stop it any way he can. If he sees people checking behind can he stand up and scream like a girl, or turn the table over, or throw his glass at the all important third player? Either way he would stop the action. If the players behind are not paying attention then what measures can you go to to wake them up? I know glassing someone is extreme but people would pay more attention afterwards. What is the rule if you say stop but they don't? If the dealer wasn't staring at his own feet he could be of some help here I think.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I'm astonished by this ruling.  Just relieved that it wasn't me on the end of it in a £300 comp as I'd be absolutely fuming.

I can usually see the logic behind most rulings, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, but not in this case.  Ultimately, the dealer should be controlling the game and following the action and to punish a player for a dealer error (albeit one which crops up regularly regardless of how good the dealers are) seems totally unfair to me.

I've not played poker as much as some who have commented, but I've never seen this ruling enforced in any game I've played.

Seems to be an 'easy out' type of ruling for a TD, which avoids them having to make any decisions based on the specifics of the hand in question (i.e. innocent errors, angle shoots, etc)

[George2Loose]

I agree with Mantis's point too. How do you stop people from acting out of turn? And how the fuck can you when you're looking at your stack to bet.

One point everyone has missed here that if we do scream and shout we could well be giving our hand strength away "WHOA- NO ONE ACT OUT OF TURN- I'VE FLOPPED BOTTOM SET AND DONT WANT MY HAND DECLARED DEAD"

Guy's point is also valid. If I'm at a table with a "Friend- Poker friend!" then maybe we can give each other the nod to act out of turn super fast so an opponents hand is dead?

[MC]

This is quite simply the worst ruling I've ever heard of. I mean WTF.

[skolsuper]

youre comparing apples and pears george. Vegas attracts smart dealers who mostly play the game, dtd attracts mostly local semi attractive skanks from the estate that dont have a brain, obv there gonna miss loads of stuff, whose gonna want to deal in front of leering blokes and listen to "four king ten" haha everynight for
close to min wage.

Possibly the most offensive post I've ever seen


Terrible ruling (ok red dog, terrible rule). Declaring a live hand dead should be the A-bomb of rulings, only to be used as a last resort or in extreme circumstances. This does not qualify as extreme circumstances. Cf makes a good point about the slightly different situation in which this ruling would be not so bad, but I still think even then the hand shouldn't be killed unless the player obviously knew what was happening and obviously waited in order to gain an advantage. What I think SHOULD happen is that the hand is live but the player can make no aggressive action, the standard way in which many penalties are structured so that savvy players can't use rulings to gain an advantage.

As an aside, if I'm in a hand and see the other player go to his chips before his turn, I wait for him to make his bet before saying anything. I never thought before now that this could be interpreted as underhanded, after all he's the one making a mistake, not me, why shouldn't he get some kind of information penalty? What are people's opinions on this, am I a dirty trickster?

[George2Loose]

youre comparing apples and pears george. Vegas attracts smart dealers who mostly play the game, dtd attracts mostly local semi attractive skanks from the estate that dont have a brain, obv there gonna miss loads of stuff, whose gonna want to deal in front of leering blokes and listen to "four king ten" haha everynight for
close to min wage.

Possibly the most offensive post I've ever seen


Terrible ruling (ok red dog, terrible rule). Declaring a live hand dead should be the A-bomb of rulings, only to be used as a last resort or in extreme circumstances. This does not qualify as extreme circumstances. Cf makes a good point about the slightly different situation in which this ruling would be not so bad, but I still think even then the hand shouldn't be killed unless the player obviously knew what was happening and obviously waited in order to gain an advantage. What I think SHOULD happen is that the hand is live but the player can make no aggressive action, the standard way in which many penalties are structured so that savvy players can't use rulings to gain an advantage.

As an aside, if I'm in a hand and see the other player go to his chips before his turn, I wait for him to make his bet before saying anything. I never thought before now that this could be interpreted as underhanded, after all he's the one making a mistake, not me, why shouldn't he get some kind of information penalty? What are people's opinions on this, am I a dirty trickster?

Nope don't think you're a trickster at all. I hate people not concentrating and not following the action "What happened here?" people calling out of turn. PAY ATTENTION FFS!

[gatso]

I doubt we've ever had such a universal dislike for a rule/ruling. really hope someone from dtd reads through this thread and takes notice

[action man]

wow i was in a bad mood.

[doubleup]

Possibly the most offensive post I've ever seen

You should probably get out more

This does not qualify as extreme circumstances. Cf makes a good point about the slightly different situation in which this ruling would be not so bad, but I still think even then the hand shouldn't be killed unless the player obviously knew what was happening and obviously waited in order to gain an advantage.

This is a silly suggestion - how can a TD possibly make this judgement.  The standard rule quoted by CF is perfectly adequate and had it been applied correctly OP's hand wouldn't have been declared dead, (although only mr stupid of stupid avenue, stupid town would possibly give him any action without the nuts).

As an aside, if I'm in a hand and see the other player go to his chips before his turn, I wait for him to make his bet before saying anything. I never thought before now that this could be interpreted as underhanded, after all he's the one making a mistake, not me, why shouldn't he get some kind of information penalty? What are people's opinions on this, am I a dirty trickster?

yup, your an angle shooter (sorry)

[tikay]

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.

[George2Loose]

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?

[outragous76]

tikay/all

a check is usually a silent action, and if a guy checks with his left hand your prob not going to see it whilst looking at your chips. The further away it gets you are not going to see it.

You cannot punish a person for getting ready with his action

and im not sure the dealer is blamelss here - why did she think he had checked?

If this rule sticks - i wont have a problem with getting rulings (against pre flop aggressors particularly) when this occurs, because it is a huge advantage and isnt considered angle shooting (obv the guy who didnt check but is awaiting to act  is the angle shooter)













*i obv wont do this but you see my point - no way the person who hasnt made an error should be punished in this spot, and it is very very expoitable