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

[Sack it off]

DTD is a poker club that I respect alot and I think it is the best run cardroom I've ever visited, but this ruling has changed my view entirely.

This is very ranty because I have just got back from the £300 DS which the hand was played in.

at 50/100 there are 2 limpers and one guy min raised to 200, to which I call from the SB as does everyone else.

The flop falls 24Q two clubs. I have 22 and decide to lead as I see no reason to slow play. As I am looking down at my chips to decide what amount to bet, the BB did not know I had cards so proceeded to check and everyone else follows until the original raiser bets 400, by which time I have bet my 500. The dealer is unsure what to do as I explained I haven't acted yet. Floor is called and my hand is declared dead because 3 people have acted after me. DEAD??!!!

This is the most insane ruling I have ever heard, I was told it is my responsibility to alert people when they act after me, but I wasn't even looking up at the time.

After mentioning the ruling to my friends at the break they said they have witnessed this ruling enforced before, surely this isn't correct?

What happens if every player wants to see a cheap turn or river, everyone slams the table so the person who is about to bet runs the risk of having his hand dead??

Utterly ridiculous, admittedly it hurt so much more when I see that I would have got the much needed double up that I needed which is what brings on such a rant.

[kinboshi]

Who made the ruling?

Don't understand why you're inaction hasn't counted as a check? Not sure I understand what's happened. If it was decided that you didn't make an action to start with, why don't you have the option to act when it comes round to you after the bet?

Have you omitted something from the sequence of events?

[gatso]

have seen this ruling before when e.g. a bets, c raises, d calls, e calls then it's noticed that b has still to act

rule is obv not designed though for the situation in the op where you should just be considered to have checked. abs ridic ruling

[outragous76]

dead hand?

why cant you just act?

redic ruling indeed!

[Sack it off]

I haven't omitted anything.

People checked out of turn and then someone C bet, I then put my bet in (which I thought my mistake meant it would count as a call unless action changes)

I allowed the dealer to explain what happened and she knew the situation.

The person who made the ruling was a fair haired middle aged guy. A regular tournament director

[action man]

i would have kicked up a huge fuss, why didnt you? get trumper over?

[TightEnd]

Just run this past another TD here, as a "what if?"....they gave exactly the same ruling

If someone mistakenly acts, before a first person has acted, and two people follow on from that mistaken action..then the first hand is dead.

[outragous76]

Just run this past another TD here, as a "what if?"....they gave exactly the same ruling

If someone mistakenly acts, before a first person has acted, and two people follow on from that mistaken action..then the first hand is dead.

redic

so dealer error and player is punished - sure seems real

[kinboshi]

I don't understand why anyone thought you didn't check and then either called or raised?

[TightEnd]

It's both totally real and in my experience a standard ruling in card-rooms I have visted

Yes, a dealer should be keeping the action in order, stopping the action if required.

The thinking behind the ruling is to stop a person gaining information by not acting. Granted in this instance that's not the intention.

[outragous76]

It's both totally real and in my experience a standard ruling in card-rooms I have visted

Yes, a dealer should be keeping the action in order, stopping the action if required.

The thinking behind the ruling is to stop a person gaining information by not acting. Granted in this instance that's not the intention.

yes but there is nothing to stop people to the left angle shooting by insta checking - inducing others to check - guys hand is dead if 3 people check - and he queries he still wants to act - this would be especially exploitable if separated by dealer (if 1st to act was seat 9 but seat 1 insta checks and makes seat 2 check assuming its his turn)

great rule

[TightEnd]

It's both totally real and in my experience a standard ruling in card-rooms I have visted

Yes, a dealer should be keeping the action in order, stopping the action if required.

The thinking behind the ruling is to stop a person gaining information by not acting. Granted in this instance that's not the intention.

yes but there is nothing to stop people to the left angle shooting by insta checking - inducing others to check - guys hand is dead if 3 people check - and he queries he still wants to act - this would be especially exploitable if separated by dealer (if 1st to act was seat 9 but seat 1 insta checks and makes seat 2 check assuming its his turn)

great rule

if the Dealer/TD determine there is collusion by checking/acting in this fashion the angle shooters will receive a penalty.

[outragous76]

It's both totally real and in my experience a standard ruling in card-rooms I have visted

Yes, a dealer should be keeping the action in order, stopping the action if required.

The thinking behind the ruling is to stop a person gaining information by not acting. Granted in this instance that's not the intention.

yes but there is nothing to stop people to the left angle shooting by insta checking - inducing others to check - guys hand is dead if 3 people check - and he queries he still wants to act - this would be especially exploitable if separated by dealer (if 1st to act was seat 9 but seat 1 insta checks and makes seat 2 check assuming its his turn)

great rule

if the Dealer/TD determine there is collusion by checking/acting in this fashion the angle shooters will receive a penalty.

once?

dont think so

[pleno1]

edit: sorry

[TightEnd]

I'm relaying the comments to a TD here and feeding back his responses Guy.