Gutshot!

[RED-DOG]

I made my first visit to the Gutshot card room tonight to play in the 200 freeze out sponsored by William Hill, and, by the way, if your going to sponsor a tourney, adding 25% (5k) to the prize pool is definitely the way to do it, I have to say I was really impressed.

I started my journey early because Im notoriously bad at finding venues I havent been to before, and London is a big place to get lost in. But with the help of directions emailed to me by my dad from a computer programme that he has (isnt technology wonderful) I arrived two hours before kick off. Side street parking was easier than expected and free after 6.30pm, but if you arrive before that time dont forget you have to pay the congestion charge, 5 from any paper shop. Ian, The Belly, Ollenshaw (sorry if I spelled it wrong Ian) told me that when he got to the congestion charge zone it was 6.25 so he stopped and went into a pub for five minuets, Id rather spend my fiver on beer he said

When I got to the door I was met by a smiling tikay who, for some strange reason, was wearing a sensible jacket and long trousers. He introduced me to Phil, the big cheese from William Hill, who was a great bloke and very approachable, as were the rest of the W H crew. They presented me, and all the other players with a nice logoed handbag or manbag or whatever they call them, Ive wanted one ever since I saw Junior fish a kit Kat out of his at Walsall.

The venue itself had 10 poker tables, complete with black baize and nice padded edges to rest your arms on, 6, I think, downstairs in the basement, and 4 in the bar/dining area, there is also a side room with about 10 computers offering online games

I was determined not to look at the menu because Im trying to lose a bit of weight but someone walked past me with the most tempting plate of bangers and mash you ever saw, and I knew the diet was doomed. Still I thought, Ill give the rack of ribs and the fillet steak a miss and just have a burger. When it arrived it was like a cows left buttock in a bloomer, complete with proper chips and a salad, it was a meal big enough to fill an elephant.

So, on to the game, I had drawn seat 8 table chen (all the tables have names) but I thought he said table ten, so I asked the dealer is this ten? Chen he said, ten? I said, Chen he answered. After about five minuets of this I just sat down.

There was not too much action for the first 30 minuets or so, 5000 starting chips and no one was in any hurry, then my first playable hand, AQos in the sb, there were two callers and I just made up the blinds, the bb checked. The flop came Q97 two diamonds, I raised for 500 and the bb re raised 1100 more, the others folded and I took a good hard look at my opponent. He was Jewish, I could tell that from his skullcap and the way he shrugged his shoulders, but thats all the information I got, I called. The turn card was the 10h, I didnt like it but I confidently raised 1000, he confidently went all in, I passed, goodbye half my stack. I took no further part in the game apart from paying the blinds until the first break. I cast a furtive eye toward tikays unusually large stack on my way upstairs; my 10 last longer bet wasnt looking too good either.

When I got back to the bar area I was shocked to find they had laid on a very nice buffet, I didnt want to hurt their feelings so I did my duty.

Back down stairs only to have the table broken, (I had just paid the blinds) and be sent back upstairs to join a table,( whos name escapes me) seat two. By this time the blinds were getting big and my stack was getting small so I was looking for a spot to make my move. It came quite soon, it was folded around to me and I went all in with AQo, 6 players left to act, now pay attention, I want opinions about this. Seats 3, 4 and 5 fold, seat 6 has a little dwell and calls, all in, he then holds his cards up in plain view of seat 7 who has still to act, I call for a ruling.

So, the card room manager comes over and we explain what happened, the ruling is, the hand is live, but must be exposed to everyone. Now I dont like this, seat 7 has free information, now that cant be helped, but seat 8 hasnt acted yet either, why should he get to see them? I cant benefit from this info, Im already all in, and when seat 7 folds there is no reason for seat 8 to see the cards. Anyway, after looking at the now face up hand KJo seat 8 also calls with A7, a J hits the turn and exposed card man trebles up

In the end, it actually worked in my favour I won a small side pot of 800, which I used to pay the bb, 500 and call a raise for my last 300 with 5 3, his pocket made quads, exit RED-DOG

I had a great time, I loved the venue, Will Hill did a great job, they can add 5k to my prize pool whenever they like

But what do you think about the ruling?
   

[riverdave]

Red Dog as i was the seat 7 who was inadvertently shown the allin mans hand by him tilting them upwards i'll add my thoughts on the issue. I don't think the hand should of been ruled dead as i believe the guy began to turn his cards over without thinking clearly that there were 2 players behind him still to act. If it had been clearly intentional then a dead hand ruling would of been justified.
I can see what they were trying to achieve by turning the cards over as i now had extra information to base my decision upon and they were obviously trying to nullify this by letting the whole table have the same information. Having said that i don't believe in this situation it was a good ruling as it could be to the detriment of yourself as the other all in player who has done nothing wrong in the pot.
When it became clear that this was what they were thinking of doing i didn't like it myself and tried to make it clear that i would be passing anyway (i had filth in the big blind) in an effort to say that there was no need to turn them over as i would not be acting upon the extra information so why let the limper have it as well. Unfortunately they didn't heed that and proceeded with the ruling.
It wasn't the greatest of rulings but it's not the worst i've ever seen and as you said you did actually benefit possibly in hindsight by the small side pot i'm fairly sure he would of called anyway but that's beside the point. Also maybe the card flasher got his just deserts a little while later when he went out in a massive all in preflop 3 way coup with the aces losing to trip !! 

[RED-DOG]

Thanks Dave, I agree entirely, but I have no complaints, Im just interested in what others think

[The Wall]

Nice post n story RED-DOG  is the gunshot just a card room??

I cant really comment on the ruling due to my lack of experience but I do know that If was put in that position then I would feel very aggrieved that seat 8 got to see the cards before he had acted!

[RED-DOG]

Hi Wall, well the Gutshot is not a casino if thats what you mean, but it is an internet cafe and bar, and from what I saw last night, a chess club, as well as a card room.

by the way, Ive been watching the "Whats in a name" thread for an explaination of your handle.

[Karabiner]

Excellent post Red-dog.

Your posts always make me laugh.

Loved the bit about "the way he shrugged his shoulders"  !

As for the ruling, imo it's one of those tricky situations
where there is no clear correct course of action.

If the guy had been "angle-shooting" in the eyes of the TD
I'm sure the ruling may have been different.

[RED-DOG]

Why thank you mr K, nice of you to say so, I think at the end of the day its another argument for a standardised set of rules

I wonder how Dani, Zac, Craig, Bluewolfy, or Yogi see it?

[snoopy1239]

One thing's for sure, the extra information seat 7 gains could be crucial. Imagine if he had the same hand, decided to fold cos his cards were already out, and RED-DOG's hand wins. The player showing his cards would cost RED-DOG a hella lot of chips and could really make a difference to his success in the comp.

The important thing here, as with many rulings, is deciphering between the intentional and non-intentional. Boy, you have to have sympathy with the cardroom managers sometimes.

[tikay]

CRACKING story Red-Dog, thanks!

DIFFICULT ruling - yes, sympathy for the poor guy that has to make it. Should the guy who exposed his hand be penalised? But as someone said, if it was a mistake, as opposed to a moody, that's awkward.

But my absolute favourite line from Red-Dogs terrific report was.....

"....He was Jewish, you could tell from the skull cap & the way he shrugged his shoulders" - CLASSIC.

That's Red-Dogs second nomination to this week's "Post of the Week" comp.

[Yogi-Bear]

I don't usually like to comment upon rulings, as a rule. So I won't. I find it a personal courtesy to other supervisors, not to comment, it isn't very professional to say i wouldn't have done this, I wouldn't have done that. I wouldn't and don't like people in the cold light of day, commenting upon my "Contentious" rulings. We all make rulings on the spot, and ocassionally under a great deal of pressure. If people don't like my rulings then I will sit with people concerned and tell them y I made the decision I made. And have been known to take advice on situations. Or even re-read rules before making a decision.

Also there is only one side of the story, well 2 but once Seat 7 has seen the cards it is irrelevant on wether or not he is passing. The only relevant information is that he has seen them.

BlueWolf I am sure will make his thoughts known to you Red-Dog.

People can miscommunicate what has happened. Rules are grey etc.etc. He made the correct decision in his eyes at the time. With hindsight he will know wether he is right or wrong. And he won't thank me If I say he is right or wrong.

Yogi

[RED-DOG]

thanks Yogi, you make a very good point, the decision maker is usually in a no win situation

Two things I would like to make clear

 I understand that the td had to make a decision on the spot and Im sure the was doing his best to be fair to all concerned, and I would never ask you to criticise someone else's decision, I just wanted to know if your firm had a different way of dealing with this situation.

I dont for one moment think seat 6 exposed his cards on purpose

[AdamM]

I think most, if not all on this board realise how difficult making these rulings are. The relationship between a tournament referee and the players is a complicated one, much like the relationship between a football ref and players. If a ref has the players respect they will take whatever ruling are given. the more respect, the less decention. A ref can throw away the respect the players have for them with a particularly bad ruling so walk a tight rope all the time. I don't think it's the ruling I'd have made but I wasn't in the situation and have never had to rule over wnything more than a 16 seat friends and family game.

[tikay]

Thanks Yogi. It is absolutely correct & proper that you don't comment publicly, you have good social skills. For a Lancashire lad.

But may I suggest you send Red-Dog a Personal Message via the blonde Personal Message service, giving your view. I know your opinion would carry much weight, as you are greatly respected in these matters. It really was a tricky one, & I'd hate to be the poor fella that had to make the ruling. I got my (winning) hand voided in Walsall a few years back for accidentally exposing it, but everyone has an "angle".

My view is that the guy who exposed his hand should have had it voided, but the "discretion" as to whether it was a moody or accidental is the awkward bit - and it WAS accidental I understand. Then again, I got done for speeding accidentally, but they stlll banned me. Wrong is wrong, be it intentional or not. And, arguably, the innocent party - Red-Dog - COULD have suffered.

[BlueWolf]

BlueWolf I am sure will make his thoughts known to you Red-Dog.

 

what the hell is that supposed to mean??

[Yogi-Bear]

The only rules of relevance are that if cards are exposed by accident then the man can stay in the pot but not bet again. Never says what to do If it wasn't an accident. Or what constitutes an accident.

The other rule says Show one show all.

Which when all said and done is what happened I guess.

So basically rule wise we would have done the same.

Yogi

In the process of doing that actually Tikay