DTD feedback/rulings

[dik9]

1) Every GP has been 10 handed to get the maximum players seated, after the re entry tables are broken to 10 handed tables because this is what we said we would do. If we went to 9 handed there will always be a dick that says we changed the format and only wanted to play a 10 handed table lol.

2) Chips should be changed up so that there enough smaller chips on the table in relation to the blinds but not stupid amounts that slow down the game. It is also the players responsibility to stack chips up so that they can be read by a player on the table, unfortunately there are players that handle and stack chips like chimpanzees, leaving 600 chips in front of said player is very confusing for said chimpanzee and other players on the table.

The next two are ruling related so prob of interest to dik9

3) If a player say "pot" it is the same as if a player says "banana", the dealer will still need to wait for the player to actually act. I would be very surprised if any TD at DTD called this a check, all options are open including check. I will check with the TD that ran it.
Edit: If the player said "Raise Pot" they would be held to at least a min raise.

4) I actually agree with you in this instance the whole stub should be shuffled, HOWEVER at DTD this is the way that all TD's there use, so when you go to DTD this is what will happen and the emphasis is preserving the original board.

5) 10 stacks are laid out, and the dealers are told how many stacks they deal to, if it gets to a stage where those seats wont be used the stacks are taken off and they should never have been dealt to. Again there are situations where chips are taken out of play after they have been dealt to (and this maybe for some time). It may come to a situation that after a while we check for dead stacks, sometimes players email in or phone and ask us if they can change days before the comp has started, sometimes there are communication problems and after investigating the dead stack an email or message may be discovered. This is our fault and their chips will be removed from play and they will be entered into the day they requested with a full stack.

[Skippy]

1) is because their online site can only do 10 seat tables, and they want to make it fair across the two formats.

[kinboshi]

The flop is then reshuffled and dealed.

Dealt.

[zerofive]

Wholeheartedly agree with entire post.

1: Ten handed tables are horrible to sit at and to deal on, especially as the tables at Dusk are already smaller than the standard 9-handed table so to allow more tables to fit in the club.

2: Made a post on this forum about stacks consisting primarily of high denomination chips and a bunch of reasons why it's rubbish. i think "not being balla" made have failed to make the list, but it was certainly implied.

3: This is not only a terrible ruling, but also not the ruling. It's a probably bizarre myth that originated from a TD on drugs in the West Midlands. "Pot" is no action in a no-limit game, obviously. Do you know which TD gave the ruling?

4: When Pokerstars hosted the UKIPT, they insisted on not doing this for the reasons you have pointed out. I don't understand why a complete reshuffle isn't mandatory everywhere.

[christopherhunt]

I was on the table in question last night when the 'pot' incident happened.  I remember it pretty clearly and.......

The player who was due to act said 'pot', this got a quizzical reaction from the dealer.  He then said 'i want to bet the pot' and was told that he could not do this.  Another player at the table asked for the floor to be called - she said that a similiar situation had happened at DTD before and in that instance the player had also been made to 'check' (which is what ended up happening this time once the TD came over).

However, after saying 'pot', the player did clearly say aloud that he wanted to 'bet the pot' (and there had been no previous betting action on the flop) - should he then have to put chips in as he has announced he wanted to bet?  Maybe a min-bet in this case?

Also, the post about the word 'pot' being the same as the word 'banana' - I totally understand what dik9 is saying here - it could just have been any old word he said.  But, if I say 'banana' next time it's my turn to act at the poker table I don't think i'll be forced to check my hand in that spot, so it kind of hasn't turned out the same in this situation has it?

[dik9]

If he said "Bet the pot" he should be forced to at least min bet as the word bet has been used in context. If he simply said "pot" all options should be open.

43: Pot Size & Pot-Limit Bets
Players are entitled to be informed of the pot size in pot-limit games only. Dealers will not
count the pot in limit and no-limit games. Declaring “I bet the pot” is not a valid bet in no-limit
but it does bind the player to making a bet of a valid amount.

Maybe there is a rogue TD lol I shall find out:)

[christopherhunt]

He did say only 'pot' and first but when it was made clear to him that this was not valid, he definitely said 'i want to bet the pot'.

Anyway, what do I know, about 10 mins later I managed to get all of my chips in against Cf's top set on a Q-high board  , thank goodness for re-entry 

[stato_1]

Why is that the ruling for saying "pot"? Surely everything would be clearer and less angling possible if pot meant pot?

To clarify I do know that pot is just another word in no limit holdem but it does seem a bit silly to me

[dik9]

Why is that the ruling for saying "pot"? Surely everything would be clearer and less angling possible if pot meant pot?

To clarify I do know that pot is just another word in no limit holdem but it does seem a bit silly to me

It is supposed to be a game of observation, and the dealer should not be giving out any information to influence any decisions. The player should be working out what the pot is as the hand progresses. That is also the reason why the pot should be messy, as the dealer should not assist players decisions by stacking chips neatly.

In all poker games, originally they were all self dealt and a Buck Knife indicated who dealt, later on this changed to a Dollar Coin (hence the name "Buck" for a dollar. If you did not want to deal you passed the Buck, hence the phrase).
A house dealer assumes the position of where the Buck should be, and is simply there to deal the cards and protect the integrity of the game. As the time progressed and games changed the use of other markers were used, all were called buttons. So now we have a dealer button, fckin tilts me that people north of Birmingham call it a bloody Dolly!!! A Dolly is a gambling marker used in Roulette to indicate a winning number grrrr.

I digress, don't know what happened there sorry for going in to one lol

Saying "pot" could also indicate that you want to know how much is in the pot, again in no limit the dealer should look at you with a vacant look You can of course ask the dealer to "spread the pot" in which case the dealer should wake up from his confused daze and oblige you.

[AndrewT]

Whilst the reasons for 'pot' being meaningless in a live game are outlined above, I can see how it would cause confusion for someone who plays online, where not only is the size of the pot clearly shown for no-limit games, but it is also used as the basis for bet sizes with betting buttons marked '1/2 pot', '3/4 pot', 'pot' etc.

[PizzicatoXev]

Had a pretty shitty situation occur in the final 2 tables of the Super 50 last night...

I was moved from Table A to Table B and was told to sit in the 1 seat. Seat 2 was vacant (player busted previous hand) and seat 3 was due to be the big blind. The button had just moved to seat 9.

I automatically didn't post as it was apparant that I was coming in on the small blind. I was then told to post the BB and that the button would remain in seat 9 for the continuing hand to correct the blinds... Cards were dealt and no player took action until a secondary ruling was called for. Thankfully the secondary ruling was more in line with normal practices and a misdeal was declared but I fail to see how this situation could occur in the first place... I mean its not THAT complicated and a pretty standard situation.

After the secondary ruling, wether it was a joke or not, the comment that we were wasting time while the other table played was made and could we hurry up and finally play a hand was totally unneeded and annoyed me quite a bit...

[dik9]

Errm, lol, I don't know who was running the super 50 with 2 tables left. But it sounds like from what you say that the Floor had it right the first time, but fooked it up.

If 1 and 2 are free and 3 has not yet been BB you should be seated in P2 as you have to move from the worst position to the worst position. Therefore Button seat 9, P1 (sb) vacant, P2 posts BB, P3 utg. So next hand the button moves to P1 you post sb and P3 is now BB.

To be moved from A to B there should have been 2 seats already open and you have to post BB at the earliest possible time (unless a table breaks), if a table was breaking then the dealer on Final table should have waited for all to sit down, if this was the case then if the button was moving to seat 9, new players would be coming in on the sb (p1) and bb (p2) if seat 3 hasn't already posted BB, but you say the "other" table indicating the former.

Sounds like the secondary ruling was wrong? as you should have been moved to seat 2 and posted the BB with a dead sb button in 9 simplez lol, next hand seat 1 (dead button)  you post sb, and now p3 should be BB.

I am not going to re read that, as it probably sounds like gobbledegook lmao but is the correct way.

[dik9]

As this thread has been resurrected, I have been reminded of the "pot" situation. I did ask the TD involved and he explained his decision to me. He did in fact know what should have happened, but used rule 1 on him.

Turns out the person who said pot was an experienced DTD player, and more probable than not knew he would have to min bet (as to seem stronger than he actually was by saying "pot" or "bet the pot"). With this info I would stand behind the TD's decision but would have awarded a penalty or at the very least explain why he was forced to check to the player and the table.

If this was done, maybe this thread would be slightly different lol

[zerofive]

Errm, lol, I don't know who was running the super 50 with 2 tables left. But it sounds like from what you say that the Floor had it right the first time, but fooked it up.

If 1 and 2 are free and 3 has not yet been BB you should be seated in P2 as you have to move from the worst position to the worst position. Therefore Button seat 9, P1 (sb) vacant, P2 posts BB, P3 utg. So next hand the button moves to P1 you post sb and P3 is now BB.

To be moved from A to B there should have been 2 seats already open and you have to post BB at the earliest possible time (unless a table breaks), if a table was breaking then the dealer on Final table should have waited for all to sit down, if this was the case then if the button was moving to seat 9, new players would be coming in on the sb (p1) and bb (p2) if seat 3 hasn't already posted BB, but you say the "other" table indicating the former.

Sounds like the secondary ruling was wrong? as you should have been moved to seat 2 and posted the BB with a dead sb button in 9 simplez lol, next hand seat 1 (dead button)  you post sb, and now p3 should be BB.

I am not going to re read that, as it probably sounds like gobbledegook lmao but is the correct way.

That should filter out said gobble.

[dik9]

Ty Sean lol