Ruling, right or wrong?

[AdamM]

Most of the people who ask for advice are much further down th poker ladder than yourself. I'm sure you'll have no difficulty keeping your feet on the ground, especially with a bit of healthy ribbing from the Blondites but please don't feel you have to excuse yourself giving an opinion. I'm sure the seasoned pro's also value your take on it as much as the novices would. I quite liked the key hand break down stuff. I could see how it would be useful to novice players and to the rest of us you could have gone into a bit more detail about some key hands and caught bluffs or key laydowns people made. I thought it could have gone further than it did.

Just an observation really because when you've come up in conversation with home game buddies they've asked "is he actually any good?" because of your modesty going a touch too far. Not claiming to be world class is one thing but you don't want to come across as a plucky beginner either.

[tikay]

The "key hand" bit on Poker 425? We like doing that - a lot - & may do more of it, but there is only so much we can squeeze into 30 minutes, though I have a hunch this week's prog may bea little longer. I will mention it to the producer chappie.

We did, for a while, & rather unprofessionally, try covertly extending the programme by 5 or 10 or 15 minutes, & we got away with it for a few weeks. But nowadays on one night - Sunday I think - the prog is followed immediately by Live Football, so that scuppered that.

But I will pass on your comments.

[Teacake]

First post... having been lurking for the last couple of days & have been really impressed with the quality of this forum. You guys obviously spend a lot of time making sure it runs smoothly.

The thing that has impressed me most is the friendliness of the guys who have obviously been here a while towards the newbies, I like the way its not treated as some kind of exclusive club.

Also the credentials of some of the posters are top notch, I've seen at least a dozen or so on the box & I gather there are at least a couple of dozen playing in the Main Event at the WSOP. Good luck all.

I know this has been off topic so far but I couldn't help but respond to patmans earlier post about playing out of turn as its usually me he does it to 
It just goes to show it happens at all levels.

Keep up the good work Tikay I know you've made quite an impression on my mate ( & arch nemesis at the poker table) dave. Hes the one responsible for the sudden influx of "sweaties" 

[snoopy1239]

Welcome to the site bud.

Don't be shy in posting your views.

[londonpokergirl]

In a tournament situation, if you act out of turn,then your bet stands for a moment, until the original person has acted.    As the original person acted raised to 7000, your bet doesn't stand and can be taken back for you to choose what to do

Your bet would only stand if the original person checked

Hope it helps
Mel   Tournament Director

[Nightfly]

surely your bet only stands if the player to your right checks. once he's bet the 7000 you should be able to call, raise or fold. he's had info about your intentions and if he wants your 1500 he can check raise you to get it.

I agree with adam on this one... The bet must stand IN ORDER of betting and only stands if it is still a valid bet after the preceeding player has acted:
a raise of 1500 is not valid after player 4 had put in a bet of 7000 and player 6 should have the right to call or fold.

According to Roberts Rules of Poker:
Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet, call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed.

[tikay]

Yup, welcome aboard Teacake, lets see plenty of posts please. And thank you for your very flattering comments. But it's true, the blonde forum is a "nice" place to be, & the blondeites are a real friendly bunch, it's a no-flame zone".

When Dave Colclough first invited me to be his partner in this site, he gave me two criteria. Blonde must have a humorous edge. And he wants those associated with blonde to be reasonably well-liked in the poker community. We are working on both! There is, by the way, a splendid profile of Dave Colclough in this weeks Football First, in the Poker First section - "Meet Poker's Smiling Assassin".

And it's also true that we have some serious "names" on blonde, of which many are playing in the WSOP biggie, or have been on the telly. And we cater for all ages, we even have some quite old people who contribute, as well as "young-ish" guys like me. (Official, see today's RP Magazine, free with the Racing Post).

Now, routine question for you. Teacake - why so?

Has Dave got any more mates? - let's hope so!

[tikay]

Getting back to the business in hand, this ruling makarky is fascinating.

LondonPokerGirl (Mel Lofthouse,high class player & TD) make her point with authority, but then Nightfly countered it beautifully by quoting from "Roberts Rules of Poker" (who is this Robert fella?).

But I'd have to point out to Nightfly the opening word of the relevant extract from RROP - "DELIBERATELY". Casting our minds back a very long way to the original post by jbsc7769 - it was clear that this was NOT "deliberate". So how does RROP deal with that? Not at all, I suspect, hence all the debate......

What view does AdamM, another of our rules experts, have on that I wonder?

[Scottish Dave]

Ha ha Teacake i like it Steph, oops am i not supposed to yous your real name??

As soon as i seen the Newest member was 'Teacake', i almost choked on my Lunch, i knew it was you right away.

You better watch what your saying about me on here, anymore bumming up from you guys (Teacake, Rod Paradise and Patman) and people will start to think im a nice guy

Welcome Aboard Mate

Dave

[jbsc7769]

I just accepted the ruling to be correct, there were a few big names at the table (including one WPT winner) so I didnt bother argueing the point, you kind of assume that the Bellagio would be correct. I did speak with several people after and at least a two people did say that the rule WILL vary between casinos. Again, this brings us back to the old chestnut of why there are not one set of rules that we all abide by.

[tikay]

One set of rules? Now THERES a thought........

[redsimon]

quoting from "Roberts Rules of Poker" (who is this Robert fella?).

Robert or Bob Ciaffione. Author of lots of Poker books (Omaha, No limit & pot Limit poker etc)

[Nightfly]

But I'd have to point out to Nightfly the opening word of the relevant extract from RROP - "DELIBERATELY". Casting our minds back a very long way to the original post by jbsc7769 - it was clear that this was NOT "deliberate". So how does RROP deal with that? Not at all, I suspect, hence all the debate......

this of course is the problem with direct quotes.. I did not mean to imply that jbsc7769's action was deliberate, as it is quite clear it was not.
As for RROP on the "Deliberately" matter about the best he can do is:

The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the persons amount of poker experience and past record.

combined with

Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

[AdamM]

Rules expert? you're having a laugh. That AdamMs home games rules I sent you and you published are basically a trimmed and better ordered version of Roberts Rules of Poker that Nightfly mentioned. It's Bob Ciaffone (spelling) who as many will know is a well known writer and player the other side of the pond. A decent attempt at a set of universal rules, if a little disjointed.

We've kind of moved onto a general acting out of turn thread now haven't we. My feeling is that intent should always be taken into account when giving rulings on this sort of thing. If player 7 passes out of turn because he's impatient or bored he should be bollocked because it alters previous players decision. If he does it knowing he's out of turn that should be treated more seriously and either warned officially or penalised in some way. If player 8 acts because player 7 has he shouldn't be penalised at all, unless again, it's obviously intentional. betting out of turn is the same. usually it's just a lack of concentration and consideration but the player who's been missed has gained an advantage. they can either check raise which is a very strong move, check pass which has saved them money or check and close the betting with a call. I'd love the player to my left telling me what they were going to do everytime. would make the game much easier. because I'm quite tight at the table, if the player to my left is a maniac they often act before me, assuming I'm passing. that often gives me good check raise info. It's perhaps a little bit border line morally by me but I might take abit of time thinking if i have a big hand and keep quiet, hoping the act assuming my cards are already mucked.

Intent is a bit of a personal issue for me. String betting particularly is something that I think is badly ruled on. Not by TDs because it rarely gets that far. I understand the problem with moving chips in several trips and looking for a reaction, or dropping them one by one and looking for a reaction, but when a player says raise and drops chips infront of him/her in a verticle stack and someone says it's a string bet and takes only the bottom chip they're being an arse. there's no information being gained by the raiser. usually it's longtime players bullying newbies. If there's no intent to gain information by the string bet (which is obvious by where the raiser's looking) then the bet should stand. the set of rules I put forward says something about a players relative experience should be taken into consideration when ruling on etiquette. seems fair to me.

[AdamM]

there yuo go, summed up in two posts while I'm typing my long one.