Another ruling thread

[I KNOW IT]

There is one chip-set at DTD where the 5k chips are purple and I once failed to notice that a player was using his last one as a card-protector on a red deck and wrongly assumed that he was all in so I exposed my hand.

If one of those purple 5k chips was directly under a 1k chip I could understand him mistakenly thinking that there must have been a red 500 chip underneath and that the bet was 1500.

The TD's job is to ultimately give what he thinks is a fair ruling not to adhere strictly to the letter of the law come hell or high water as that is when bad rulings occur, so I'm assuming that the TD knows the guy who made the mistake and considers him to be a straight up guy and the mistake to be genuine.

So do you think the ruing was fair to the guy who bet 6k Ralph?
I appreciate your opinion where you cant always follow the letter of the law, but when there are specific rules in place it best to try to, otherwise there will be the possibility of angle shooting in the future. There also has to be consistancy with the rulings that are made

[Tal]

There is one chip-set at DTD where the 5k chips are purple and I once failed to notice that a player was using his last one as a card-protector on a red deck and wrongly assumed that he was all in so I exposed my hand.

If one of those purple 5k chips was directly under a 1k chip I could understand him mistakenly thinking that there must have been a red 500 chip underneath and that the bet was 1500.

The TD's job is to ultimately give what he thinks is a fair ruling not to adhere strictly to the letter of the law come hell or high water as that is when bad rulings occur, so I'm assuming that the TD knows the guy who made the mistake and considers him to be a straight up guy and the mistake to be genuine.

How about if the TD doesn't know him? He could still be a straight up guy who made a genuine mistake but now we're saying that the TD can make a decision based on his personal knowledge of the player?

That's a pretty dangerous road to take.

But it isn't about that. It's about making the best and fairest decision possible on the information available. It has to be case-by-case, but there also needs to be a basic position - an "in a vacuum" ruling - so that a decision, when challenged, can be justified.

For me, the starting point should be the call is 6,000. Then, TD decides whether there is a good reason to stray from that position. If he is satisfied that the player genuinely intended to call 1,500, I think it might be fair to allow what would be a highly unusual variation from the norm.

Still don't like it, though.

[doubleup]

The call should be 6k, its covered by the accepted action rule within the TDA rules which are most commonly used rules around the world.

The responsibility is on the caller to know what the bet is, he can ask the player or the dealer.

Im on my phone so cannot fully quote the "accepted action " rule but it is there to cover such instances.

yeah but rule 1 is referenced in this section.

I really don't know why everyone is going "omg everyone will be angleshooting now".  TDs aren't stupid.  This scenario involved an overbet that could have been confused for a smaller bet AND a player putting in chips equal to the smaller bet AND a player instantly turning over his hand before the dealer could intervene or clarify the situation.

[david3103]

The call should be 6k, its covered by the accepted action rule within the TDA rules which are most commonly used rules around the world.

The responsibility is on the caller to know what the bet is, he can ask the player or the dealer.

Im on my phone so cannot fully quote the "accepted action " rule but it is there to cover such instances.

yeah but rule 1 is referenced in this section.

I really don't know why everyone is going "omg everyone will be angleshooting now".  TDs aren't stupid.  This scenario involved an overbet that could have been confused for a smaller bet AND a player putting in chips equal to the smaller bet AND a player instantly turning over his hand before the dealer could intervene or clarify the situation.

How would you see this ending if the hand strengths were reversed???

[Karabiner]

There is one chip-set at DTD where the 5k chips are purple and I once failed to notice that a player was using his last one as a card-protector on a red deck and wrongly assumed that he was all in so I exposed my hand.

If one of those purple 5k chips was directly under a 1k chip I could understand him mistakenly thinking that there must have been a red 500 chip underneath and that the bet was 1500.

The TD's job is to ultimately give what he thinks is a fair ruling not to adhere strictly to the letter of the law come hell or high water as that is when bad rulings occur, so I'm assuming that the TD knows the guy who made the mistake and considers him to be a straight up guy and the mistake to be genuine.

So do you think the ruing was fair to the guy who bet 6k Ralph?
I appreciate your opinion where you cant always follow the letter of the law, but when there are specific rules in place it best to try to, otherwise there will be the possibility of angle shooting in the future. There also has to be consistancy with the rulings that are made

I'm not specifically defending the ruling itself Craig.

Just saying that these rulings are not black and white and that the TD's have a difficult job and ultimately have to go with either their gut-feeling when a situation like this arises or rigidly stick to the letter of the law.

I think I've seen more bad rulings occur when the letter of the law has been adhered to inflexibly than when common sense has been applied, although obviously favouritism could be and has been a problem in the past. Not at DTD though.

[relaedgc]

It's not cries of omg angle shooting.

I struggle to understand why it is difficult to understand why it's somewhat disconcerting that an individual can bet 6,000 and an individual can instead place a lesser amount in the pot - and then claim they thought it was less and be given amounts back.

You're penalising the player that has bet out for what reason? If you don't know what the bet is, ask for the dealer to confirm. If it was a bet of 600 instead of 6000 and player b places 1,500 in the pot to which the dealer says "raise" and player B says - I meant to call, do you allow it to stand as a call or is it a raise?

[I KNOW IT]

The call should be 6k, its covered by the accepted action rule within the TDA rules which are most commonly used rules around the world.

The responsibility is on the caller to know what the bet is, he can ask the player or the dealer.

Im on my phone so cannot fully quote the "accepted action " rule but it is there to cover such instances.

yeah but rule 1 is referenced in this section.

I really don't know why everyone is going "omg everyone will be angleshooting now".  TDs aren't stupid.  This scenario involved an overbet that could have been confused for a smaller bet AND a player putting in chips equal to the smaller bet AND a player instantly turning over his hand before the dealer could intervene or clarify the situation.

Rule1 was enforced in this instance it seems but there is a specific rule to cover this situation.
You have to be there to make a judgement call, you cannot do it by reading about it on a forum . All players have to be protected not just the guy who wasnt paying enough attention.
It will be hard now for the accepted action rule to be enforced in the future and what players and TD's both want, is consistancy

[david3103]

It starts to feel as though the player in question may be known to some of those posting here.

[Radagast]

I have to say the decision is disconcerting.  Having never been to DTD and hopeful of making the trip down from Glasgow sometime, this decision reeks of incompetence to me.

If the info in the OP is correct, its pretty straight forward decision.

Would be a riot up here if any other decision had been made in a Scottish cardroom.

[Tal]

It starts to feel as though the player in question may be known to some of those posting here.

For the record, I've no idea who it was.

[doubleup]

The call should be 6k, its covered by the accepted action rule within the TDA rules which are most commonly used rules around the world.

The responsibility is on the caller to know what the bet is, he can ask the player or the dealer.

Im on my phone so cannot fully quote the "accepted action " rule but it is there to cover such instances.

yeah but rule 1 is referenced in this section.

I really don't know why everyone is going "omg everyone will be angleshooting now".  TDs aren't stupid.  This scenario involved an overbet that could have been confused for a smaller bet AND a player putting in chips equal to the smaller bet AND a player instantly turning over his hand before the dealer could intervene or clarify the situation.

How would you see this ending if the hand strengths were reversed???

Not sure that this specific situation can get reversed as hero is obv polarised and wouldn't be likely to show instantly if he was bluffing.  That said I agree that someone might be able to take advantage of an unusual set of circumstances (though I can't think of them at the moment).  I don't agree that after this ruling everyone is going to be saying "oh I thought he was betting a 10th of the pot, do I have to call?"

[doubleup]

I have to say the decision is disconcerting.  Having never been to DTD and hopeful of making the trip down from Glasgow sometime, this decision reeks of incompetence to me.

If the info in the OP is correct, its pretty straight forward decision.

Would be a riot up here if any other decision had been made in a Scottish cardroom.

actually the first time I came across the rule I quoted above was after a decision in the Glasgow Alea in a £200 comp.  A player bet 1400 and another player called 400.  The ruling was that it was a genuine mistake.  I though this was the wrong decision at the time, but there were no riots 
 

[TightEnd]

I have to say the decision is disconcerting.  Having never been to DTD and hopeful of making the trip down from Glasgow sometime, this decision reeks of incompetence to me.

If the info in the OP is correct, its pretty straight forward decision.

Would be a riot up here if any other decision had been made in a Scottish cardroom.

Please, lets not exaggerate. We don't know if the info in the OP is 100% accurate -  it quite often isn't in ruling threads- and using words like incompetence and riot is way over the top

The TD concerned has been pointed to this thread, and talked to Simon Trumper about it, by the way

[david3103]

The call should be 6k, its covered by the accepted action rule within the TDA rules which are most commonly used rules around the world.

The responsibility is on the caller to know what the bet is, he can ask the player or the dealer.

Im on my phone so cannot fully quote the "accepted action " rule but it is there to cover such instances.

yeah but rule 1 is referenced in this section.

I really don't know why everyone is going "omg everyone will be angleshooting now".  TDs aren't stupid.  This scenario involved an overbet that could have been confused for a smaller bet AND a player putting in chips equal to the smaller bet AND a player instantly turning over his hand before the dealer could intervene or clarify the situation.

How would you see this ending if the hand strengths were reversed???

Not sure that this specific situation can get reversed as hero is obv polarised and wouldn't be likely to show instantly if he was bluffing.  That said I agree that someone might be able to take advantage of an unusual set of circumstances (though I can't think of them at the moment).  I don't agree that after this ruling everyone is going to be saying "oh I thought he was betting a 10th of the pot, do I have to call?"

We've all witnessed players pretty much insta-mucking when called on the river so it doesn't seem to take that much imagining to me.

Fwiw I don't think the ruling here opens up the possibility of future angle shoots, but I do think the ruling is wrong.
I'd be interested to know who the beneficiary of it was.

[Karabiner]

It starts to feel as though the player in question may be known to some of those posting here.

I do not know either of the players David.

My view is totally impartial and completely based on what I have read  here.

I do know most of the TD's at DTD though.