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

[RED-DOG]

Whatever happened to Harvey's Bristol Cream?  Does it still sell loads, as I've not seen it advertised for donkey's.

Tatiana Harvey, complete with Bristols.

[Tuffster]

Whatever happened to Harvey's Bristol Cream?  Does it still sell loads, as I've not seen it advertised for donkey's.

Tatiana Harvey, complete with Bristols.

Too subtle by half, Tom.

[RED-DOG]

Whatever happened to Harvey's Bristol Cream?  Does it still sell loads, as I've not seen it advertised for donkey's.

Or...

Donkeys don't like it.   

[bobAlike]

Whatever happened to Harvey's Bristol Cream?  Does it still sell loads, as I've not seen it advertised for donkey's.

Or...

Donkeys don't like it.   

I'm intrigued on how you know this, it could be the making of a great Red-Dog story.

[kinboshi]

Whatever happened to Harvey's Bristol Cream?  Does it still sell loads, as I've not seen it advertised for donkey's.

Or...

Donkeys don't like it.   

I'm intrigued on how you know this, it could be the making of a great Red-Dog story.

Sounds like he tried to woo one in his youth, and thought that all it'd take would be a few glasses of sherry and he'd be able to get his wicked way.  'e orrrlways used to try it on apparently.

[Sack it off]

tytyty for reply DTD

Guess I have to respect that if I play at DTD it's their rules I play by. Just thought on this occasion that the wrong ruling was made

[crymeariver]

Why is there. 17 Pages? the ruling is correct, its not wrong its 100%right. Also the tds
ruling is final, no 2nd opinion. Jog on.

[geordieneil]

all dealers at DTD should be trained to deal (and look like) Harvey

No ty!

^^THIS^^

Possibly the worst dealer in there!

What did Harvey say when you told him that?

FWIW, I'd happily sit at Harvey's Table all day & all night, he's brilliant, & keeps the game moving super fast. And he does subtle humour, which maybe you struggle with.

absolutely this, harvey is a brilliant dealer, keeps the game flowing , with a dry sense of humour to keep the banter flowing.

[RED-DOG]

Why is there. 17 Pages? the ruling is correct, its not wrong its 100%right. Also the tds
ruling is final, no 2nd opinion. Jog on.

It's a poker forum. We talk about poker and give our opinions.

Welcome to blonde.

[doubleup]

Why is there. 17 Pages? the ruling is correct, its not wrong its 100%right. Also the tds
ruling is final, no 2nd opinion. Jog on.

It's a poker forum. We talk about poker and give our opinions.

Welcome to blonde.

no point he'll never post again, just an ignorant troll.

[crymeariver]

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

what would trumper do? lol he doesn't have any say in rulings
Its up to the supervisor.

[Boba Fett]

Can someone describe for me what an incorrect riffle is?

[Boba Fett]

First of all - WP dtd, an excellent response

I dont want to suggest a specific ruling, as I am sure that you guys will have more involvement and expereince with regard to situations than most.

However I dont think that the rule needs to be fixed for DIFFERENT scenarios. I think that you should make a very clear distcintion between checking and betting.

A check is frequently silent and can be very swift to get through 3 players (lets say level 1 in an 8 way limped pot). The person wanting to take action (as in this hand) should NOT be penalised.

However, if there has been a bet and 3 people CALL (or whatever) then I would happily accept a different ruling in this scenario. The dealer will at least have spoken at this point (in all likelihood) to have at least alerted the player to the actions.

For me if players have checked out of turn - the original player should have all options open

If he is facing bets - I am very uncomfortable with his hand being dead (esp if only say 2 players have acted quickly as they are the only ones left in). but i do see the player can gain an advantage. - I probably prefer no aggresive action at this point.

I think another point to consider when making the ruling  (assuming this is all post flop discussion) is what happens if the turn gets dealt (although the player would have to be really unaware to not have seen the dealer tap the table) - just throwing it out there as I have seen it happen

How about if 1 person checks, the next person quickly bets and the person after snap calls?  Is the hand dead?  Or how about 2 quick checks and a bet?

[rudders]

Got to say...... generally the dealers at dtd are brilliant. There is the odd mistake and the occasional thing that I dont like, but far far less than those made by the players on the table. If something really bothered me I would just mention it politely to the dealer concerned. One thing that really winds me up is poker players being rude to dealers and blaming then for their poor play/luck. I just played a 2 day self deal tourny in swansea, and took it upon myself to deal throughout, it probably meant a lot more hands per hour then the other tables ( is this to your advantage or disadvantage?) and the others on the table were more than happy. Yeah I made the odd mistake, but think it went ok..... my point - by the end of 7 hours on the first day I was bloody knackered, my back ached and my head hurt. Yes I had to play hands, but those who know me would realise that folding does not take too much effort. I also didnt have to take too much of the constant whining that normally goes on, as they were merely offered the option of dealing. Before we are too critical of delaers - try it - I know it is their job - but we really dont appreciate how lucky we are to have the good ones.

As far as the OP. the ambiguity of the rule is both the problem and the solution. common sense needs to be applied, if you opt for a rigid interpretation there will be times that it wil appear unjust.

In this case a ruling was made  in the ultimate bet classic in Aruba, by Jack McClelland (ex wsop, wpt etc), witnessed by Pab and myself.
A guy pauses to think what bet raise to make preflop ( he claims he said raise - noone heard). there are 3 very quick checks before he yells for them to stop. He argues that he wants to raise and that it was not his fault, it was pointed out that he now had a lot of free information. The ruling was that he was allowed a min raise ( he was not impressed), he was also informed that if action had taken place after 3 checks he would have been deemed to have checked. He could therefore reopen the betting.

We discussed this at length and decided that this was probably the best compromise . It was also suggested that he paid better attention, which did not improve his sense of humour

[buzzharvey22]

the thing i like about harvey is that he helps move the game on, the thing tht tilts me the most is when a player keeps repeatedly taking too long over non trivial decisions....ie when it is on him he feels he should finish off his conversation before he looks at his cards and folds. Harvey is very good and nudging these players and making them act. However, he is still respectfull and understand when somebody has a genuine decision. Some people complain when a dealer is talkative, i am not a fan when they are discussing hands or something not relevant, however i feel what Harvey says helps the game progress.

I had not noticed any problems with his riffling so hopefully that has been corrected.