Another ruling thread

[MPOWER]

Reading the rules @ DTD

I. Floor People- Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floor person's decision is final.

I think the TD got it 100% right. I don't really think a 6K bet would of been called.

Matey got a 1 round penalty for not paying attention. So Vin got 1500 Chips off the guy. IF the guy thought 6000 Was the call he would of passed.

Some may not think FAIR but I do think best Interest for the game.     

Make your bets clear and pay attention. We all can learn.

Regards

M

[celtic]

Reading the rules @ DTD

I. Floor People- Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floor person's decision is final.

I think the TD got it 100% right. I don't really think a 6K bet would of been called.

You dont play much live poker then?

Matey got a 1 round penalty for not paying attention. So Vin got 1500 Chips off the guy. IF the guy thought 6000 Was the call he would of passed.

How do you know this for sure?

Some may not think FAIR but I do think best Interest for the game.     

Make your bets clear and pay attention. We all can learn.

What is unclear about throwing in a 5k chip and a 1k chip?

Regards

M

Also, if the TD thought the guy did nothing wrong, why did he get a penalty?

[pleno1]

If hero bets 1500 and villain puts 6k in what's the rule

[Tal]

If hero bets 1500 and villain puts 6k in what's the rule

The basic position is it would be a raise (single chip rule), but that isn't the only possible decision.

[gouty]

The TD has ruled that he never verbally said " call"

If had ruled that he said "call" then the 6k is due. Also OP should not of opened his hand.

Nice read tho.

[outragous76]

The TD has ruled that he never verbally said " call"

If had ruled that he said "call" then the 6k is due. Also OP should not of opened his hand.

Nice read tho.

So we can now throw in a few chips silently in the hope hero turns his hand

Seems like a solid rule foundation for future consistency! What if hero insta mucks?

[JaffaCake]

Sounds like a really bad ruling, whether OP said call or not.

So many other circumstance where villains can pick up or 'see' wrong chips yet would have to pay the price, some of which are outlined in this thread. Fraid he has to pay 6k and learn to double check the call amount in future if he's got dodgy eyes or can't clearly see and hasn't heard the dealer or the dealer hasn't stated the amount.

[Boba Fett]

The TD has ruled that he never verbally said " call"

If had ruled that he said "call" then the 6k is due. Also OP should not of opened his hand.

Nice read tho.

At which point should a bettor open their hand then?  When all the chips are in and they then double check that its called and the other player has understood the correct betsize?  Last aggressor has to show 1st, as soon as he is called he should be insta opening it or mucking.  Fucking about and not instantly doing 1 or the other is 1 of several small delays that unnecessarily slow down the game

[Vinodh]

Wow, I guess I have opened a very lengthy debate!! Please note my intention never was to accuse TD/the other player. I have never seen the player before so I cannot comment whether this was angle shooting or not.
 Just wanted to clarify whats the ruling. I know both the TD and the dealer did the best they could. Even though the TD thought this is a fair ruling, since I was at the wrong end of the stick, I was a bit surprised by it- If the bettor doesn't  declare his bet but puts his overbet, then if the caller doesn't ask how much the bet was / nor said Call and just puts some chips in which is 1/4th of the overbet, bettor insta turns over his hand "thinking" he has been called.
Isn't putting any two / more chips constitute CALL???
 

[outragous76]

I really think Dtd need to comment on this thread. I'm obviously with Bobba & Jaffa (sounds like a kids double act), that the ruling seems like it can never be right and I am personally of the opinion it is open to angling.

The fairness rules are there to allow discretion, but this ruling clearly favours the person making the error, and is punitive to the aggressor. This, IMO can never be fair. A 1 round penalty is neither here nor there.

Would really like to know the facts on which the rule was based and the rule which was applied to make the decision

[kinboshi]

Id be interested to hear Tom's opinion on this as a neutral to add balance.

Lets look at this from the other angle. If villain had made the call with the 1500 chips and revealed the winning hand would he of received all of your 6000 bet?

I was at the table but was distracted at the crucial moment, nevertheless I was so surprised by the ruling that I questioned the TD about it in private.

I'll tell you what he said when I get a minute.

Food or valet (or both)?

[RED-DOG]

Id be interested to hear Tom's opinion on this as a neutral to add balance.

Lets look at this from the other angle. If villain had made the call with the 1500 chips and revealed the winning hand would he of received all of your 6000 bet?

I was at the table but was distracted at the crucial moment, nevertheless I was so surprised by the ruling that I questioned the TD about it in private.

I'll tell you what he said when I get a minute.

Food or valet (or both)?

They have a new dealer who liiks exactly like Jenny Agutter in Logan's Run....

[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.

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 
 

These situations are different imo.  But I can understand where sometimes the lines get blurred.  I have been in situations early in tournies where people say call when they intend to limp not realising there has been a raise.  I have seen them get their chips back.  Maybe under this ruling you talked about.

But I have seen loads of instances, usually later in the tourney where the decision is made that the player can fold and leave the chips in that he has put across the line.

Admittedly these are usually before the final round of betting.

[Karabiner]

I think some people need to remember that this ruling was made in a £50 tourney which has been held specifically to encourage as many grass-roots players as possible to play in the event, and that a little more leeway might be allowed for some rulings especially when dealing with players who might be perceived by a TD as being relatively inexperienced.

I also think that the ruling might well have been different had it happened in a £1K Monte Carlo type tourney where players are expected to be a lot more sophisticated when playing at that level.

[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.

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

I apologise for my language.  When I posted it was based on the OP being correct.  If the TD ruled the villain didnt say call I can maybe understand the decision but I wouldnt agree with it.